Hi guys,
Please excuse the shameless plug (I hope the mods are ok with me doing this ::) )
We just launched a new product called Cinelog which works with Adobe Camera Raw and most raw video shooting Canon cameras, plus the Digital Bolex and Blackmagic Cameras.
Full info is on our website www.cinelogdcp.com (http://www.cinelogdcp.com)
Unfortunately this release isn't a freebie (and yes we know there is something similar available for free) but Cinelog is true log space conversion for Magic Lantern Raw and other DNG based video and comes with a comprehensive LUT pack and guide.
If you have any questions or want sample frame conversions to test gradability let me know using the contact form.
So is it calibrated for each camera's dynamic range, or is it a generalized curve?
Andy600
i'm interested in your subwords about the inofficial converters. tell, whats wrong and i try to fix that.
Quote from: iaremrsir on January 24, 2014, 08:04:41 PM
So is it calibrated for each camera, or is it a generalized curve?
Each camera profile is calibrated specifically to their corresponding standard DNG matricies (2x color and 2x forward - in cameras that use them). The curve is logarithmic and gives equal results across all cameras (i.e. no clipped highlights or shadows and equal steps through all f-stops). Think similar to Cinestyle but better and for raw video with the benefits of Adobe Camera Raw debayering etc.
Quote from: chmee on January 24, 2014, 08:14:22 PM
Andy600
i'm interested in your subwords about the inofficial converters. tell, whats wrong and i try to fix that.
Hi Chmee,
It's currently impossible (or is for me at least) for Exiftool to change metadata with raw2cdng and Raw Magic. It just crashes.
These profiles require the exif tags 'Model' and 'UniqueCameraModel' to be populated to function correctly.
mlv_rec embeds the metadata by default but .raw_rec doesn't and footage needs to be retagged (easy to do and described 'how to' in the manual for mac/pc/linux).
If raw2cdng embeds both tags the Cinelog profiles will work fine. I'll amend the documentation and website immediately if raw2cdng has both tags embedded but it would be good if the DNGs can be edited with Exiftool in future as more tags are likely to be added to ML raw. It didn't with my older cDNG footage btw.
Quote from: Andy600 on January 24, 2014, 08:20:34 PM
Each camera profile is calibrated specifically to their corresponding standard DNG matricies (2x color and 2x forward). The curve is logarithmic and gives equal results across all cameras (i.e. no clipped highlights or shadows and equal steps through all f-stops). Think similar to Cinestyle but better and for raw video with the benefits of Adobe Camera Raw debayering etc.
So it's a complete color space? So if I were to take ML Raw footage and Blackmagic footage, and convert them to Cinelog there'd be no difference? (unless of course the scene's dynamic range exceeds the Canon's limit)
Quote from: iaremrsir on January 24, 2014, 08:28:30 PM
So it's a complete color space? So if I were to take ML Raw footage and Blackmagic footage, and convert them to Cinelog there'd be no difference? (unless of course the scene's dynamic range exceeds the Canon's limit)
The colorspace is true log with DNG standard color which, in our tests gives a fairly uniform set of colors that reproduce very closely across all cameras (if the color matrices are set correctly correct). Intercutting footage from a BM and a Canon camera will be easy. There are 2 profiles per camera. One is has the DNG standard matrices plus our log curve and the other 'Cinelog CT' has an additional, built-in LUT. The website details the thinking behind the additional CT profile.
If you have a couple of frames from 2 different cameras I'll convert them with Cinelog and you can see what you think :)
ok. thanks for the hint. btw. with 1.4 i put a edit field for modeltag and unique model id into raw2cdng, but i think, i know, what thing causes the problem :)
Quote from: chmee on January 24, 2014, 09:19:59 PM
ok. thanks for the hint. btw. with 1.4 i put a edit field for modeltag and unique model id into raw2cdng, but i think, i know, what thing causes the problem :)
Great. TBH I converted most of my earlier footage with raw2cdng and loved the convenience of it... and the results :)
Support for .mlv would be the best thing ;)
Hi Andy600,
you write on the web site:
"Magic Lantern Raw Video that has been converted to CinemaDNG using Rarevision Raw Magic or raw2cdng is only supported for the 5D Mark III due to irregular metadata added by the applications."
So what if I have 5dmk2's DNGs converted with Rawmagic? Should I use 5dmk3 conversion package? Or I can't use it at all?
Thanks...
Andy600, what is the difference between this and VisionLog? Is your cinelog gives any other results? Do you have any plans for making this work in resolve?
Quote from: avasarin on January 25, 2014, 08:34:51 AM
Hi Andy600,
you write on the web site:
"Magic Lantern Raw Video that has been converted to CinemaDNG using Rarevision Raw Magic or raw2cdng is only supported for the 5D Mark III due to irregular metadata added by the applications."
So what if I have 5dmk2's DNGs converted with Rawmagic? Should I use 5dmk3 conversion package? Or I can't use it at all?
Thanks...
Raw Magic CinemaDNG's cannot have their metadata edited/corrected with exiftool so we cannot guarantee compatibility. If you want to send me one of your 5D2 DNGs converted with Raw Magic I'll check if it a) works and b) works correctly.
Cinelog profile's are unique to each camera model and will not work with other cameras so you would need Cinelog for the 5D Mark II.
Quote from: kgv5 on January 25, 2014, 09:11:46 AM
Andy600, what is the difference between this and VisionLog? Is your cinelog gives any other results? Do you have any plans for making this work in resolve?
Cinelog is a mathematically calculated log curve i.e. it's very accurate (it's similar to Log-C from the Alexa). It doesn't crush shadows, does not add any contrast to the image and retains all of the DR of your raw image. Cinelog also has full implementation of all color matrices useable by the cameras. The additional Cinelog CT profile also has a built-in LUT that improves on the standard DNG color palette and gives great skin tones on Canon cameras. Plus there is a nice LUT pack included ;)
The Visionlog profiles crush shadows and lift the black point to make the image appear flat plus the gradations between f-stops are not equal. It uses a custom curve and isn't logarithmic. You might think this doesn't matter as it's still raw data but it matters a lot if you want to make the highest quality intermediates for color grading or inter-cut with log footage from different cameras.
Andy, don´t excuse, thanks for sharing the news. Just bought it. Curious to see how it stands up "against" VisionLOG and how good the overall dynamic range is preserved .. as I´m normally always working with Alexa ProRes footage on my day job I´m eager to see what you can squeeze out of the DNGs!
thanks!
Steffen
Quote from: SteveScout on January 25, 2014, 02:17:42 PM
Andy, don´t excuse, thanks for sharing the news. Just bought it. Curious to see how it stands up "against" VisionLOG and how good the overall dynamic range is preserved .. as I´m normally always working with Alexa ProRes footage on my day job I´m eager to see what you can squeeze out of the DNGs!
thanks!
Steffen
Thanks Steffen :)
We aimed to get close to Log-C gradeability, so as someone who works with Alexa footage I'm very interested to hear your thoughts. We made test curves that extend DR compression to ridiculous levels (but obviously they got very noisy), so we went with the most suitable one for the 5D Mark III's 11-12 stops.
Will come with feedback soon! We´re always shooting with Alexa or Epic-X as A-camera (our work: www.alexandsteffen.com), but I have my MK3 always with me to shoot inserts if needed in ML raw.
Intercutting the camera´s output after colorcorrection is never really a problem, but your approach could make it faster and way more accurate.
Stumbled across the first small drawback .. in my DNG sequences the metadata always reads "5D MK II" which I never understood why, so I can´t apply your DCP without changing the camera model with the exiftool. Great manual you made!
Have to check out DNGs with the latest builds. Or switch to MLV. Aargh .. so far the MLV workflow with converting them to RAWs first is painful, especially for longer projects. Need something like BATCHElor (with instant DNG and cineform offlining) for MLVs urgently ..
If this works fine I´ll implement cinelog in my "Raw camera workflow article" which - so far - features VisionLOG: http://hackermovies.com/hackermovies-magic-lantern-raw-workflow-guide
cheers,
Steffen
Quote from: SteveScout on January 25, 2014, 02:57:24 PM
Will come with feedback soon! We´re always shooting with Alexa or Epic-X as A-camera (our work: www.alexandsteffen.com), but I have my MK3 always with me to shoot inserts if needed in ML raw.
Intercutting the camera´s output after colorcorrection is never really a problem, but your approach could make it faster and way more accurate.
Stumbled across the first small drawback .. in my DNG sequences the metadata always reads "5D MK II" which I never understood why, so I can´t apply your DCP without changing the camera model with the exiftool. Great manual you made!
Have to check out DNGs with the latest builds. Or switch to MLV. Aargh .. so far the MLV workflow with converting them to RAWs first is painful, especially for longer projects. Need something like BATCHElor (with instant DNG and cineform offlining) for MLVs urgently ..
If this works fine I´ll implement cinelog in my "Raw camera workflow article" which - so far - features VisionLOG: http://hackermovies.com/hackermovies-magic-lantern-raw-workflow-guide
cheers,
Steffen
Thanks!
If your Mark III DNG's have the 5D Mark II tags, the meta needs changing definitely! If you used for instance the Cinelog 5D2 profile on 5D3 footage, the color matrix will be wrong i.e. wrong colors. We locked the profiles to the UniqueCameraModel tag deliberately to avoid wrong matrix calibrations being used.
BATCHelor and other raw2dng based converters usually keep the default models and these defaults can be whatever the app maker decided (or not changed at all). The raw2dng DNG meta implementation is basic but .mlv embeds more (and the tags we need for Cinelog). Changing meta can be a pain but hopefully the manual makes the process a little easier. Thanks for the compliment on the manual. I tried to be thorough :)
re: batch conversion. We are looking into development of a proper app for ingest and transcoding but it won't come anytime soon. I suspect you will see .mlv support coming soon in the current apps which should make things a lot easier. I just hope the app devs make use of the tags properly.
Great news Andy!
Just a note: I was looking at the data of your product ... in fact, seems to be amazing (like maybe a comparison with VisionLog, perhaps a mathematical analysis). That's when I thought about buying and came across the price of 29 euros! :o His work is indeed very good, and I know exactly the work it takes to develop something that requires so much math. This even comes with LUT's correction... But do not you think somewhat expensive?
It's the same problem of "Cinegrain": the product is amazing, but absolutely expensive.
Furthermore, you are working with a digital product ... How long do you expect this to be distributed pirated form?
Remember of the Eastman Kodak to sell the Brownie. Sometimes we need cheapen to popularize it... :P
Thanks for your comment Luiz. I understand that if you compare it to something that is free it will seem expensive :)
We developed Cinelog for several cameras and not just the Canons that shoot Magic Lantern raw video, and we are adding more. There is a full guide and the Rec.709 LUTs included but also 18 'look' LUTs that were developed using professional monitoring. I believe Vision Color sell their Osiris LUT collection alone for $69 (which I think is good value considering the work they did).
We have already received endorsements from several professional DIT's and colorists who are now using Cinelog as part of their raw pipelines because they understand the logic behind it and are confident in Cinelog's accuracy.
re: piracy - Do you think it would be less likely to happen if it were $1 instead of 29 euros? I don't ;)
Exactly, but I'm in no way in favor of VisionColor. I, as a photographer and videographer indie do not have much money, I think the OSIRIS also somewhat expensive.
In any way want to belittle your work. Incredible actually think and reading texts on your website, I noticed that something is really accurate and well done. But one of the big reasons why we're here, in ML forum, is due to a market that has become popular, a lot, in recent years and this because, rightly, materials and solutions (aka ML) are cheap or open source for fantastic quality.
I know that if I want something of extreme quality, I will have to pay dearly, this is our capitalist world, but maybe prices that correspond to the market that it was created it would be fairer.
If you sell to producers who use Alexa, at this price, as colourists cited by you, they certainly will not question, because the "class" in which they work is much higher than ours, agree? Companies working with Alexa are the largest in the world, and will not ask to have it. The same can not be said for us indie.
I'm not telling you with the intention to do a fall in price, or something. The intention is only to question the producer who your consumers and adjust their prices to the same. Anyway, I hope to obtain the Cinelog future.
ps: I believe that would happen even if it was free. ???
I understand your point of view completely Luiz. Cinelog certainly benefits professional users who may be working with Alexa and 5D Mark III raw footage but, being an indie myself, I wanted it to also be accessible for amateurs which is why we actually priced it very reasonably. Take for instance when Sony released S-log for their high end cameras. It cost thousands of dollars and basically does something very similar to Cinelog (although S-Log is for in-camera use). R&D costs time and money. Not everyone has need for optimum quality but there are those who certainly do and their reputations and businesses are built on it.
I'm not sure how difficult this would be, but I think you can make this work for Resolve using 3D LUTs. So if we set the DNGs to REC709 or DCP color space, and set linear gamma, apply a CAMX2Cinelog LUT. And you have the speed of Resolve with your logarithmic curve for compression.
Quote from: iaremrsir on January 27, 2014, 09:02:05 PM
I'm not sure how difficult this would be, but I think you can make this work for Resolve using 3D LUTs. So if we set the DNGs to REC709 or DCP color space, and set linear gamma, apply a CAMX2Cinelog LUT. And you have the speed of Resolve with your logarithmic curve for compression.
Already tried with linear profile DNGs and Cinelog embedded in a LUT. The results are not as good or as accurate as you get with the ACR workflow. You can get fairly close with a LUT if the embedded DNG metadata is correct but Resolve only uses the first DNG color matrix and it's DNG implementation is quite basic. We had issues with color casts, skin tones and other things that just don't happen with ACR plus ACR still beats Resolve's debayering 99% of the time.
We have a couple of pros putting some examples together and the differences are quite noticeable. If you use a batch script for rendering DNGs with Cinelog through AE it's comparable in speed to rendering intermediates from raw files in Resolve. I will post everything on our website when the content is ready.
Do you include the batchscript in AE to your lut?
I think from looking on your site this is interesting stuff :). I am considering getting (buying) the Cinelog but even after reading all the information on the site I still am not sure how much of an improvement it will bring me? ::)
I am by no means an expert, but I (like many), strive for the best possible image. I have used the VisionLog profile and think that I am following the correct workflow. Basically (if I am correct?), once you convert with Cinelog, you then use AE native colour adjustments (hue, levels etc.). I think I am right with that? :-\
So I am a little confused already about how 'best' to treat the image here. What I would really like to see is a video or video tutorial that explains the whole process (including within AE) from beginning to end. I think what would also be pretty important, is to see how it compares to alternative methods (such as the 'normal' method through ACR) including VisionLog (perhaps a direct comparison?).
I really need to see a comparison of an image being manipulated through this so I can see what's going on and where it excels (which I am almost certain it does!).
I am someone that has to be absolutely convinced before I commit to buying something and basically I am still not certain as to how much it will benefit me and if it will improve image quality. The image is the most important thing and that is why I would purchase.
Thanks in advance :D
@Danne - we don't include a batch script. The best option is http://aescripts.com/batchprocessor
@Mageye - we are working on a basic workflow video but if you use VisionLog you will already be familiar with how things work. How you grade the image, and the NLE you use to edit, is entirely up to you but we provide LUTs to get your image into Rec.709 colorspace plus several 'looks'.
A basic After Effects workflow would be to convert your raw files to DNG, import your sequences to AE and apply Cinelog in ACR. You really only need to tweak white balance (if needed) and click OK. Then add the sequence to your timeline, set the correct frame rate and export to a high-end codec (Prores HQ, DNxHD, Cineform, Grass Valley HQX or DPX etc). You can then work with video files that have all the latitude of the raw files.
The difference between Cinelog and Visionlog might not appear big at first glance but in a professional workflow, where retaining quality throughout post production is vital, it can be significant, especially where highlight and shadow information is concerned. VisionLog (from what I can tell) is not logarithmic and is not a mathematically calculated curve, which means the steps between f-stops are not uniform and smooth. Shadows and highlights are squashed at each end with the mids almost linear (it's a bit odd). It also lifts black levels a lot (a good trick to hide noise) and if you render intermediate videos like that you will inevitably lose some latitude and detail when trying to open up the upper and lower ranges of your image. If you want to work with raw footage, as raw footage, you are better off working linear (i.e. no curves applied) but that can be tricky. Obviously realtime playback of your raw footage is very CPU intensive and workflow is very very slow because of debayering + applying plugins etc so that option isn't usually viable for anything over a few minutes long.
The other significant difference between Visionlog and Cinelog is that we embed each camera's individual matrices and most other metadata, specific to the model. Cinelog is a dual illuminant profile and ACR uses this to interpolate colors depending on the white balance settings to help keep colors accurate (it helps with difficult lighting situations). We also tweaked the standard DNG colors in several places to fix some issues with Canon colors so that skin tones are where they should be (have you ever noticed what DNG conversion does to skin colors on Canon images?). Anyway, I could go on and on but you want to see results so keep an eye on the website for some interesting things ;)
Quote from: Andy600 on January 27, 2014, 09:52:36 PM
Already tried with linear profile DNGs and Cinelog embedded in a LUT. The results are not as good or as accurate as you get with the ACR workflow. You can get fairly close with a LUT if the embedded DNG metadata is correct but Resolve only uses the first DNG color matrix and it's DNG implementation is quite basic. We had issues with color casts, skin tones and other things that just don't happen with ACR plus ACR still beats Resolve's debayering 99% of the time.
We have a couple of pros putting some examples together and the differences are quite noticeable. If you use a batch script for rendering DNGs with Cinelog through AE it's comparable in speed to rendering intermediates from raw files in Resolve. I will post everything on our website when the content is ready.
Well that's disappointing to hear :'( But it's good to hear you guys already went the extra mile and tested with another program. I really wish Adobe would find a way to offload the debayering and processing. And not make us confirm settings for every DNG clip we import.
Quote from: Andy600 on January 25, 2014, 11:46:35 AM
Cinelog is a mathematically calculated log curve i.e. it's very accurate (it's similar to Log-C from the Alexa). It doesn't crush shadows, does not add any contrast to the image and retains all of the DR of your raw image. Cinelog also has full implementation of all color matrices useable by the cameras. The additional Cinelog CT profile also has a built-in LUT that improves on the standard DNG color palette and gives great skin tones on Canon cameras. Plus there is a nice LUT pack included ;)
The Visionlog profiles crush shadows and lift the black point to make the image appear flat plus the gradations between f-stops are not equal. It uses a custom curve and isn't logarithmic. You might think this doesn't matter as it's still raw data but it matters a lot if you want to make the highest quality intermediates for color grading or inter-cut with log footage from different cameras.
So, does this mean that we are recovering all the details from the highlights and shadow just like putting ACR highlights and shadow sliders to the +/- 100 value?
@iaremrsir - Yes, that would be nice. Hopefully Adobe will make ACR more video friendly but I can't see that happening anytime soon.
@kgv5 - Yes for detail but the ACR highlight and shadow sliders control intelligent highlight and shadow 'reconstruction' which is basically a form of local contrast, and very similar to tone mapping. Unfortunately, ACR is too clever sometimes. It applies some settings dynamically, depending on the specific image it is processing, and if the next frame in the sequence has a significant change in luminance ACR will adjust dynamically and this can manifest as flickering when you play back the video. Cinelog basically negates the need to touch those sliders. You do, of course, need to render in a good codec to get maximum latitude for grading but you can pull back as much information as ACR gives you (perhaps even a little more if you use tone mapping). Cinelog itself will not give you a 'HDR/Tone mapped' look but does keep all the information intact.
Just a quick correction: Resolve 10.1 most certainly uses both the color matrices and both the forward matrices. :) I haven't bothered checking with previous versions.
Quote from: cpc on January 28, 2014, 02:49:44 PM
Just a quick correction: Resolve 10.1 most certainly uses both the color matrices and both the forward matrices. :) I haven't bothered checking with previous versions.
Thanks for clarifying :)
Just to add to that: The matrices need to be embedded in the DNG for Resolve to utilize them and (afaik) most ML raw converter apps currently either use ML's default single ColorMatrix1 (unique to each model) or just duplicate it (i.e. Raw Magic) for the second. Maybe it's different if working in ACES with input transformations? but Resolve only has them for the 5D (doesn't say if its Mark 2 or 3), 7D and 1D.
DCPs can override this so even if the matrix/matricies are set incorrectly the profile's settings will be used (if selected, and if the DNG has the correct UniqueModelName tag). I love working in Resolve but footage (especially ML raw footage) just looks better when it's been debayered in ACR.
If Blackmagic added DCP support we'd be halfway there.
Andy600, thank you for the answers, i have bought it and will test in the next days.
Quote from: Andy600 on January 28, 2014, 03:24:39 PM
Maybe it's different if working in ACES with input transformations? but Resolve only has them for the 5D (doesn't say if its Mark 2 or 3), 7D and 1D.
Canon cameras ACES IDTs in Resolve are for camera native codec footage (although unclear to me what picture profile is assumed).
As the DNG tags should technically describe the camera space fully, any DNG footage is imported with the CinemaDNG ACES IDT, no matter what camera it comes from. ACES workflow in Resolve is still a bit rough though.
@Andy600
Thank you for your reply it's informative stuff. You say that once converted 'you will have the full latitude of the raw files'. If this is true it's excellent. Excuse me for being cautious, but seeing as things move quickly and possibly there will be another way of treating the images in a few months, I would personally like to keep backups of my RAW files (just in case!). Again, I would really like to know rather than think I know that I am retaining the best quality image. It always seems that almost any conversion will have it's caveats. I apologise, it's just my suspicious nature!
However, I am really interested in what your profiles have to offer and I will indeed be scrutinising your website for any information that may convince me. Of course I can't wait to see some real world comparisons and examples. I am nearly there!
Thanks again. ;) :D
@mageye - Nothing wrong with caution. I'm the same myself :)
If you want to have a play with an image or two just send me a couple of your DNGs and I'll convert to them Cinelog as TIFFs. Incidentally, we're opening a private LUT bank for Cinelog users later this week and we'll be adding new content weekly. We have a couple of interesting conversion LUTs to add (Cinelog to Log-C colorspace and Panavision Gensis Log colorspace) plus a couple of new 'look' luts including one that replicates the color gamut and gamma in Act 3 of Skyfall.
Very interesting, can't wait to try them out! Been doing more work lately with raw for music videos, and now that my workflow is pretty much down pat, I want to start testing more grading options.
@Andy600 If I am going out to a high bit depth intermediate like 16bit, is there any benefit to using your log profile?
Quote from: bnvm on January 31, 2014, 06:47:11 PM
@Andy600 If I am going out to a high bit depth intermediate like 16bit, is there any benefit to using your log profile?
That depends on how much flexibility you want in post, how much hard disk space you have or need, how big the project is, are you handing over to a colorist etc. What codec/image format are we talking about exactly?
Log will give you the benefit of a more film-like response in the shadows/highlights. Given that using ACR's recovery sliders can cause flickering if used your only option would be to stay in the raw domain until final output as you would need to grade or at least balance each clip as you go, that's a very slow way to work. If your projects are not large or time critical then working with raw files is an option (if your DNGs are meta-tagged correctly so ACR can understand what the colors are really supposed to look like).
With Cinelog you can literally import your footage, check the WB (or just use 'as shot' WB if you're confident of your shoot settings), set the frame rate and render to an intermediate without having to think about shadows and highlights until later i.e. you can trust it. It's the equivalent of having Log-C Prores HQ or 444 files to work with but you can decided on the codec depending on your needs and/or how important the footage is. We do still recommend output to Prores HQ or higher but that's up to each user. I personally output to 10Bit DNxHD most of the time and I'm happily now deleting my raw files and freeing up TB's of space. I'm not sat thinking "could I have got more from the DNGs?" because Cinelog retains the highlight and shadow information, the colors are great and everything is a whole lot faster.
I guess what I am really wanting to know is would exporting a 16bit tiff file using your log profile offer any benefit over just exporting a 16bit tif without it. I realize if I decide to go with a 10bit intermediate then it is obviously worth it but for 16bit it may not be unless the profile working during the debayering process increases the useable dynamic range for example.
I am going to be doing some vfx work and having a log encoded image presents some issues that require some extra steps that may not be worth going through if I decide to go with 16bit intermediates. So far I have been getting pretty decent performance using 16bit. Now if the log encoding increases dynamic range then going with a 10bit log and dealing with those issues might be worth it.
Unless you're going to uncompressed linear, 16 and 32 bit files are unnecessary. Logarithmic curves were made for compression, which means they're for 8-12 bit files. Log encoding doesn't increase dynamic range, it remaps how it is stored.
@bnvm - Yes, as iaremrsir says, it will not increase your dynamic range. The DR is governed by the sensor.
There is a misconception about 'log' and the term is often abused. To most film makers, log is simply a flatter image from raising the shadows and lowering the highlights but it's actually very important to image quality and color grading to properly calculate it. This also includes understanding of how log curves work in relation to the dynamic range of the raw image and the application applying the curve. With the BMCC we had to calculate a slightly different curve, taking into account it's 13 stop dynamic range and the ACR workflow. Log will not truncate the data. It efficiently compresses a linear source into a 'container' with an equal number of steps between each f-stop so the lower stops are not stretched in relation to the high stops (i.e. better shadow detail) and so long as you render this to a good codec you will have maximum latitude for color grading. It's because of this that a true log image can be pushed further in post than a 'pseudo-log' flattened image.
Re: vxf - I think you can set the working space individually for any clip in AE in the interpret footage panel? If you do this and linearize the workspace you shouldn't have big problems working with log footage. We don't have an ICC profile for Cinelog (yet) but the Universal Camera Film Printing Density color space should work ok. There is a tut somewhere online about composting with Alexa Log-C footage and the same thing will apply for Cinelog.
Thanks that is the answer I was looking for and what I suspected. I just wasn't sure if there was something in the way ACR works that in some way limited the dynamic range of the output, sometimes there are compromises that are made for reliable output/color reproduction, were the log curve might retain a little more.
Thanks for answering my question.
@bnvm - here's that vfx/log tut I was referring to http://wicuslab.com/working-with-arri-alexa-logc-footage-in-adobe-after-effects/ (http://wicuslab.com/working-with-arri-alexa-logc-footage-in-adobe-after-effects/)
Thanks for the link I will check it out.
Recently purchased it. I'm still using VisionLOG. I felt that while Cinelog obtained more details in my mids, VisionLog preserved my shadows a LOT better.
With that said... I am TOTALLY in love with their Film Gamma 2 LUT. Especially when I apply it to my footage with VisionLOG.
Quote from: dossisman on February 20, 2014, 05:26:24 AM
Recently purchased it. I'm still using VisionLOG. I felt that while Cinelog obtained more details in my mids, VisionLog preserved my shadows a LOT better.
With that said... I am TOTALLY in love with their Film Gamma 2 LUT. Especially when I apply it to my footage with VisionLOG.
Really? In our tests VisionLog tends to crush shadows significantly and gamma is off. This is workable if you're still in the raw domain but once you go to an intermediate format you'll struggle to get anything useful back without introducing a lot of noise. Also, we measured black, white and grey points and they don't hit the mark without a lot of push-pull in post. It won't be hugely noticeable if you're just outputting for the web but for film or Rec.709 HD TV conformity you need accuracy (especially for the BBC).
You might still get good results with VisionLog if you stick to using their premium LUTs (BTW, they do make some nice looking LUTs from what I've seen) and this is understandable as they are developing their own system but the professional colorists we converse with all prefer to grade without LUTs (except when pushed for time) and for this they much prefer an unaltered linear or logarithmic base. They also work to strict standards for broadcast work and just because something may look nice on screen doesn't mean it meets these standards. There are limits to luminance and saturation values amongst other things that need to be adhered to. We aim to help colorists get to final output quicker and with less work.
BTW You should check out the forthcoming free update to Cinelog. I think you'll be suitably impressed ;)
A quick question about Cinelog usage: is the profile optimized only for the "2012 process" or is it also compatible with "2010 process"?
I'm wondering because in some cases the 2010 can help avoid flickering.
Thanks for the feedback!
Quote from: morsafr on February 24, 2014, 11:19:49 PM
A quick question about Cinelog usage: is the profile optimized only for the "2012 process" or is it also compatible with "2010 process"?
I'm wondering because in some cases the 2010 can help avoid flickering.
Thanks for the feedback!
The point is that touching the sliders is moot with Cinelog as I understand it. You just white balance and then export.
Indeed that's the point of Cinelog.
But as far as I understand the 2012 process is adaptative for each image contrary to the 2010 version.
The ACR process method will not affect how Cinelog works but there are subtle variations to gamma and detail between 2003, 2010 and 2012 processes. It's entirely up to you which one to use. I prefer 2012 personally.
WB is the only adjustment I would say is required, even just to fine-tune it but making changes to exposure, using CA correction and Defringing highlights is ok. You can use sharpening too but I personally prefer to use an unsharp mask (0.6 radius / 50-120 amount) or a HPF. ACR Noise Reduction is ok to use but slows render times down. Neat video used on intermediates is a better option if you need NR and is much more controllable.
We're just getting ready to release a big update to Cinelog including a new preview profile so you can check exposure and WB without leaving the ACR interface. There are new, accurate Rec.709 LUTs and one for VFX artists who work in Linear 1.0 gamma plus some 'approximate' colorspace conversion LUTs to put Cinelog footage into similar colorspaces of some well known high-end cameras plus a few other goodies. It's a free update for Cinelog users.
I'm just finishing the updated manual before release (hopefully ready today/tomorrow).
Hi Andy,
Great thanks for your detailed response and the coming update!
Really appreciate your work
Hi Andy,
Which method of conversion from the mlv (or ML raw) files to CDNG do you suggest to work best with Cinelog on OSX?
Quote from: rtwomey on February 27, 2014, 11:54:35 AM
Hi Andy,
Which method of conversion from the mlv (or ML raw) files to CDNG do you suggest to work best with Cinelog on OSX?
I'm not sure if there is an app available yet for directly processing .mlv files to Cinema DNG format unless Rarevision's Rawmagic supports MLV now? There have been metadata issues with that app which mean adding some tags with Exiftool so I would suggest http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9731.0 (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9731.0) which I believe outputs 14bit DNG files.
We have just released Cinelog 2.0 for those who are interested.
The update includes:
- Cinelog 2.0 Digital Camera Profile developed with a more advanced algorithm for a hardcoded 12bit resolution curve
- A new Cinelog Preview Profile as a visual aid for adjusting exposure and white balance inside ACR
- New and improved Rec.709 LUTS with Cinelog Color
- New Technical LUTs including LUTs for gamma correction and highlight recovery
- A new Cinelog Linear 1.0 gamma conversion LUT for VXF artists to help with compositing
- Cinelog Color Transformation LUTS including tonemapped emulations of the ARRI Alexa (using the Film Matrix) and Panavision Genesis cameras
- An updated guide with more tips and a handy table to help you decide which LUT is best for your workflow
See my sig below for a link. The update is so new we haven't had a chance to update the website yet.
Great news! :D
Thanks Andy
Quote from: Andy600 on February 21, 2014, 12:29:40 AM
Really? In our tests VisionLog tends to crush shadows significantly and gamma is off. This is workable if you're still in the raw domain but once you go to an intermediate format you'll struggle to get anything useful back without introducing a lot of noise. Also, we measured black, white and grey points and they don't hit the mark without a lot of push-pull in post. It won't be hugely noticeable if you're just outputting for the web but for film or Rec.709 HD TV conformity you need accuracy (especially for the BBC).
You might still get good results with VisionLog if you stick to using their premium LUTs (BTW, they do make some nice looking LUTs from what I've seen) and this is understandable as they are developing their own system but the professional colorists we converse with all prefer to grade without LUTs (except when pushed for time) and for this they much prefer an unaltered linear or logarithmic base. They also work to strict standards for broadcast work and just because something may look nice on screen doesn't mean it meets these standards. There are limits to luminance and saturation values amongst other things that need to be adhered to. We aim to help colorists get to final output quicker and with less work.
BTW You should check out the forthcoming free update to Cinelog. I think you'll be suitably impressed ;)
Yeah. I tried with daytime ISO 160 and indoors at 1250 ISO and VisionLog gave me better shadows vs Cinelog 1.0 (though Cinelog gave much better mids).
However, I did download 2.0 and I AM MORE THAN IMPRESSED. Especially with the Conversion LUTs. This is a significant improvement over VisionLog and will be using Cinelog for all my upcoming projects.
Juan Melara's film luts SHINE with this new Log space. Great work, guys. I'm very happy with the new version.
As I type this... I'm checking the Cinelog to Alexa Film conversion lut...
Um...
LOVE. Brilliant. I can't wait for my short film shoot this weekend.
Great to hear and thanks for the feedback :)
I haven't tried Juan Melara's LUTs with the new version so thanks for the heads-up. I'll check them out!
Hi Andy
How do I update to Cinelog 2.0 ? Ive tried everything do you have a link?
I do remember getting the email saying there was a mistake with 5d3MLRAW some time ago so I had to update..
Any help would be greatly appreciated
@nickychris - you should have received an email from us a few days ago but if not can you PM me the email address you used to purchase and I'll get it resent
@Andy600 in the last versions i splitted the modellname and uniquemodell Tags - does it work now with cinelog?
@Chmee, I'll try it and get back to you :) I presume this is just .raw and not .mlv at the moment?
till now mlv was realized via mvl_dump as mlv->raw converter while drag&drop. next version will support mlv natively. are there some mlv-blockdata you need to see inside the dng-header?
cinelog might not be that useful for film makers since it is only fro ACR. to me ACR is not practical for film makers. its too slow. when we have so many clips it wud take in days not hrs to convert to any other editable format. however resolve can render in realtime so it much more pratical for film makers. yeah for magic lantern raw test with few clips its not a problen with ACR.
Quote from: andy kh on March 11, 2014, 07:42:49 PM
cinelog might not be that useful for film makers since it is only fro ACR. to me ACR is not practical for film makers. its too slow. when we have so many clips it wud take in days not hrs to convert to any other editable format. however resolve can render in realtime so it much more pratical for film makers. yeah for magic lantern raw test with few clips its not a problen with ACR.
It depends on the source footage, your view of Resolve vs ACR debayering and the NLE/Color grading app you use. A great many users don't use Resolve. I use ACR with AE and Premier pro for editing and Resolve for grading. I can say for sure that Resolve cannot produce as good results with ML footage shot on all Canon DSLR's except perhaps for that of the 5D Mark III and even that can benefit from ACR debayering. I totally agree that ACR is a time consuming step but for some it's the only option and Cinelog can be applied, footage imported and sent for render in a few seconds. You can even batchprocess this in AE so that you only need check each shot's exposure and WB. You get log footage that is easier and faster to work with. The length of time it takes to render is machine dependent. Resolve is certainly faster than ACR at rendering on my computer but it takes more work to get raw DNG footage into an editable state before starting to grade so it's a trade-off either way. Having 10bit Log footage instead of a drive full of DNGs uses way less disk space too ;)
We've begun developing an app we're tentatively calling 'Cinelink' that ingests, debayers, converts and renders to whatever codecs you have installed and it has plugin capability for better debayering algorithms, noise reduction, scaling, DCP Camera profiles (i.e. Cinelog) and LUTs etc all-in-one. Cinelog will also be ACES compatible and we will submit our 3rd party IDT's for the currently unsupported Canon DSLRs to the Academy for consideration. If we get the technical stuff and measurements right (and that is a big IF) it might even end up in Resolve at some point.
Quote from: Andy600 on March 11, 2014, 08:07:51 PM
We've begun developing an app we're tentatively calling 'Cinelink' that ingests, debayers, converts and renders to whatever codecs you have installed and it has plugin capability for better debayering algorithms, noise reduction, scaling, DCP Camera profiles (i.e. Cinelog) and LUTs etc all-in-one. Cinelog will also be ACES compatible and we will submit our 3rd party IDT's for the currently unsupported Canon DSLRs to the Academy for consideration. If we get the technical stuff and measurements right (and that is a big IF) it might even end up in Resolve at some point.
I need this.
I have a 50D and i'm planning on buying a 7D. I'm very interested in the Cinelog product, but wonder if they plan to create a video on the best workflows for the product using ACR or RAWTherapee? I think this is very much needed for the novices out there like myself. Thank you.
Quote from: Andy600 on March 11, 2014, 08:07:51 PM
We've begun developing an app we're tentatively calling 'Cinelink' that ingests, debayers, converts and renders to whatever codecs you have installed and it has plugin capability for better debayering algorithms, noise reduction, scaling, DCP Camera profiles (i.e. Cinelog) and LUTs etc all-in-one. Cinelog will also be ACES compatible and we will submit our 3rd party IDT's for the currently unsupported Canon DSLRs to the Academy for consideration. If we get the technical stuff and measurements right (and that is a big IF) it might even end up in Resolve at some point.
Do you intend the initial version of this to utilise ACR to debayer? Will it utilise GPU?
I'm very very interested in your product as I'm about to launch into a potentially long term documentary project which I will shoot on 5Diii Raw. Smaller LOG prores files are going to be a must for me, but the render speed of resolve lite is something I am loath to leave behind.
The app is a bespoke framework with it's own GPU accelerated debayering engine but it will be able to utilize other debayering methods via free plugins currently being developed in tamdem with the main app (these will include AMaZE etc). Nothing to do with ACR. It's still a long way off but we're making progress.
In the mean time we're releasing LUT based versions of Cinelog for Resolve users. Resolve Lite lacks a few of the features of ACR (Custom matrices via DCP, CA correction, lens profiles, Auto WB, noise reduction etc) but it is much faster and our results with ML raw footage look very promising. This will be free for Cinelog users. ETA this week :)
So I've been using Hunter's LUT in DaVinci Resolve and just bought Cinelog because I like to support people who do great work and there's a lot of value for me in having the most latitude possible.
My question: once I've exported from ACR, I set the first LUT to Cinelog to Linear, and then Cinelog to Alexa? (in DVR!)
I asked earlier if there are any plans to produce short tutorials of how to best use Cinelog. I see there are no videos on the website demonstrating the product. Do you see that happening any time soon?
Sounds great Andy. So you expect your debayering engine to be on a par with ACR?
Next question, have you tried this with filmconvert? If so, which camera profile would work best? At the moment I select BMD film to work with my ML raw footage.
@dubzeebass - Thanks for your support! The 'Cinelog to Linear' LUT is for VFX artists who work in Linear 1.0 gamma and would usually be used in compositing apps like After Effects, Nuke etc. If you are only working with Cinelog converted video in Resolve you should set the colorspace to 2.2 gamma in the main settings. The colorspace transformation LUTs only change color and are gamma agnostic so they can be applied anywhere in the pipeline. I would usually import footage then apply a colorspace transformation LUT (i.e. Alexa) as an input LUT and the Cinelog to Rec.709 LUT as an output LUT so that your color grading happens in-between them.
@50Deezil - Yes, sorry, time has been against me but I will make some basic tut videos asap. It's very simple to use TBH. Just load footage into ACR via After Effects or open with Photoshop, Lightroom etc, select the preview profile, adjust WB and exposure if needed, change the preview profile to Cinelog and either render 16bit TIFF (Photoshop, Lightroom etc) or open in AE and render 10bit (ProRes or DNxHD) intermediates.
@MillTech - The native debayering will be close to ACR but ACR has some clever highlight reconstruction going on that will be hard to match. You will be able to choose from several debayer methods and be able to finetune GreenSplit, add chroma blur/offset etc.
re: FilmConvert - It's only been tried with FilmConvert V2 and we found the best profiles to use are either Alexa Log (which needs a small tweak to exposure and levels) when working with Cinelog footage or apply the Cinelog to Rec.709 LUT first and choose your Camera's Standard FCP2 profile.
Quote from: Andy600 on March 20, 2014, 12:07:59 PM
@dubzeebass - If you are only working with Cinelog converted video in Resolve you should set the colorspace to 2.2 gamma in the main settings.
How can one change the gamma on a 16-bit TIFF with Cinelog already baked in?
@dubzeebass - What are you trying to do exactly?
If, for instance you are working in After Effects with a linearized workspace (1.0 gamma) for compositing, Cinelog footage will look exactly the same as it would if you had set the workspace to Rec.709. The Rec.709 LUT has the 1.0 to 2.2 gamma conversion built-in so your workspace needs to be Rec.709 for it to work. If you are in a Linear workspace you would use the Cinelog to Linear LUT. The Cinelog to Linear LUT is basically a viewing LUT to transform Cinelog footage into a Rec709 2.2 gamma look while still in Linear 1.0 gamma. I guess you may at some point want to convert your VFX to another gamma? How are you currently doing this step? I can build LUTs for whatever gamma transformations you require but I need to know your source and target colorspaces. It would help to understand how you are currently working, in what app(s) etc.
BTW, I've just got Cinelog to work great with an ACES workflow in Resolve, so that may be another, easier option. I'll provide an additional LUT if you have already converted footage when we release the Resolve LUTs.
All good! I got it working, thanks for the explanation of the Rec. 709 LUT. Respect !
This Cinelog development is so exciting for me. I've been hoping for something to help me get the best out of my footage from my 50D. Spring and Summer is coming and a ton of work with it. Can't wait to get a comfortable workflow going. What i've seen so far looks outstanding and I can only imagine how much better things will get. Keep up the good work.
Any update on those Resolve LUT's?
Yes, I apologize for the delay but we had to explore a multitude of possible Resolve workflows to find the most effective method and then develop LUTs to produce results consistent with the ACR version. It was quite a task, even when using Lightspace CMS and we ended up having to basically reverse-engineer Resolve's inaccessible BMD Film profile to be sure Cinelog's exact curve, gamma, offsets and levels were being applied accurately (yes, we did also try several methods using Resolve's Rec.709 raw profile + input LUTs, custom 1D/3D shaper LUTs, ACES, ACES Log etc etc but the best results were using BMD Film gamma). We also wanted to offer users a way to convert from one colorspace to another and back in the simplest way and this forms the basis of being able to replicate any profile in the future.
Anyway, I still need to finalize and proof the instruction guide but the Cinelog Resolve LUTs are finished and current Cinelog customers will receive a complimentary copy shortly. Using the Cinelog Resolve LUTs is simple and the results are great but there is a specific workflow (that I'm currently documenting) that needs to be followed. I still think ACR has the edge in debayering but it's very close now and Resolve trounces ACR for render time.
eta: working on it now so it will go out as soon as the guide is finished.
As a cinelog customer I'm eager for this to be ready, resolve really does render fast!
Great news, thanks Andy!
Yeah, that is what Ive been waiting for !! I switched to resolve almost completely and ACR with cinelog were useless for me from some time. That is great news, waiting for Resolve version :)
ACR better debayering - maybe, but with resolve great raw sharpening tool its overall picture quality looks better (and much sharper) to my eye. And its a hell a lot faster to work with.
Thanks Andy600. Since I can go either with Resolve or ACR, I would really appreciate if you could do a test of a file using both methods to show the difference. If it's not that much better maybe the Resolve method will be worth it in the end for convenience sake.
To be honest I'm still a bit unsure of the best workflow so I look forward to any tutorials about the subject. I've been intrigued by software like RAW4Pro and conversion to Cineform as part of my workflow, but again it's hard to know what is going to produce the best image quality with the fastest flow and smallest file sizes.
I assume that starting with MVL2DNG would be step one? After that I'm lost. Yes i'm a NOOB.
Andy,
I bought the package... ;)
when you issue an updated package to new buyers you will email all the old buyers for the updates, right?
That would be totally awesome!
Thanks!
Tommaso
Hi! When will the V2.0 "look" LUTs for for the LUT Utility FCPX plugin become available?
@50Deezil - Video Tuts are coming. I haven't made any screen captured tuts before so I need to set up everything to do it. That's my next job after the release of the Resolve version.
re: MLV - I would recommend mlv especially because of the metadata issues with .raw for Adobe workflows. Current Cinelog customers will get the Resolve version free so you have the option of either workflow.
@dia3olik - Yes, check your email for something nice tomorrow ;)
@nazcaman2 - Hopefully tomorrow but certainly this week.
Quote from: Andy600 on April 07, 2014, 02:40:25 PM
@50Deezil - Video Tuts are coming. I haven't made any screen captured tuts before so I need to set up everything to do it. That's my next job after the release of the Resolve version.
re: MLV - I would recommend mlv especially because of the metadata issues with .raw for Adobe workflows. Current Cinelog customers will get the Resolve version free so you have the option of either workflow.
Thanks Andy600. I'm even more intrigued by the new Resolve 11 announcement.
I'm curious if it's OK to convert files to CineformRAW and then do the Cinelog thing in Resolve?
Quote from: 50Deezil on April 08, 2014, 04:34:41 AM
Thanks Andy600. I'm even more intrigued by the new Resolve 11 announcement.
I'm curious if it's OK to convert files to CineformRAW and then do the Cinelog thing in Resolve?
You'd need to convert from ProTune to linear first, unless they have a ProTune to Cinelog LUT. If you don't mind my asking, why would you convert one log curve to another when their purposes are the same?
We can certainly provide a Protune to Cinelog LUT if needed but if you are working with (and are happy with the look of) Cineform Raw there is little point converting to another logspace as Cineform raw has a great quality to filesize ratio and can benefit from future enhancements to debayering and tone curves. The drawback is that it costs more as the Cineform raw codec is not available in the free version.
Converting from one logspace to another is fairly common in YRGB mixed camera workflows and ACES workflows where a cameras IDT is not available. Not all log profiles are the same. They are typically based on Kodak's Cineon Logarithmic conversion but can differ significantly in power. Cinelog for instance, has a slight linear lift at the base of the curve to reduce the affects of sensor noise and is optimized for the dynamic range of the camera. The curve looks significantly different to Protune, as Protune looks significantly different to S-Log, Log-C etc but they all effectively do the same thing.
One of the reasons it took us a while to configure a good solution for DaVinci Resolve was that we had to linearize the mystical BMD Film curve before we could apply Cinelog [1D] and Cinelog Color [3D] in a single LUT. The exact specs of the BMD film curve are not publicly available so we had to shoot a lot of raw test images to discover it's characteristics. Doing this correctly is not straight forward, even when using Lightspace CMS but we can now effectively convert Cinelog (and BMD Film) to any other log format or gamma. We're including a BMD Film to Cinelog to ARRI Log-C LUT in the new release to demonstrate and with the new features coming in Resolve 11 it will be simple (in theory) to match any camera's primaries. I can see Magic Lantern Raw Video benefiting the most from this feature but there is no specific MLV format support mentioned in the release so we are still stuck with a base profile intended for use with BMD Cameras. But - Resolve 11 will be a game changer IMHO :)
This is what the BMD Film to Cinelog Color 2.0 to ARRI Log-C (Sup 3.x ext) LUT looks like:
3D LUT view
(http://i.cubeupload.com/Jor1IA.png)
1D LUT view
(http://i.cubeupload.com/TTLDTA.png)
It's a shame you guys don't take Paypal.
Quote from: rainless on April 08, 2014, 10:44:43 PM
It's a shame you guys don't take Paypal.
I'll PM you ;)
Quote from: Andy600 on April 08, 2014, 10:05:38 PM
We can certainly provide a Protune to Cinelog LUT if needed but if you are working with (and are happy with the look of) Cineform Raw there is little point converting to another logspace as Cineform raw has a great quality to filesize ratio and can benefit from future enhancements to debayering and tone curves. The drawback is that it costs more as the Cineform raw codec is not available in the free version.
Converting from one logspace to another is fairly common in YRGB mixed camera workflows and ACES workflows where a cameras IDT is not available. Not all log profiles are the same. They are typically based on Kodak's Cineon Logarithmic conversion but can differ significantly in power. Cinelog for instance, has a slight linear lift at the base of the curve to reduce the affects of sensor noise and is optimized for the dynamic range of the camera. The curve looks significantly different to Protune, as Protune looks significantly different to S-Log, Log-C etc but they all effectively do the same thing.
One of the reasons it took us a while to configure a good solution for DaVinci Resolve was that we had to linearize the mystical BMD Film curve before we could apply Cinelog [1D] and Cinelog Color [3D] in a single LUT. The exact specs of the BMD film curve are not publicly available so we had to shoot a lot of raw test images to discover it's characteristics. Doing this correctly is not straight forward, even when using Lightspace CMS but we can now effectively convert Cinelog (and BMD Film) to any other log format or gamma. We're including a BMD Film to Cinelog to ARRI Log-C LUT in the new release to demonstrate and with the new features coming in Resolve 11 it will be simple (in theory) to match any camera's primaries. I can see Magic Lantern Raw Video benefiting the most from this feature but there is no specific MLV format support mentioned in the release so we are still stuck with a base profile intended for use with BMD Cameras. But - Resolve 11 will be a game changer IMHO :)
This is what the BMD Film to Cinelog Color 2.0 to ARRI Log-C (Sup 3.x ext) LUT looks like:
3D LUT view
(http://i.cubeupload.com/Jor1IA.png)
1D LUT view
(http://i.cubeupload.com/TTLDTA.png)
Nice! So when will it be out in the wild?
:)
Just sent out pre-release copies to our current customers. They will be available to purchase within the next 24hrs as we need to update the website first.
Quote from: Andy600 on April 09, 2014, 06:34:33 AM
:)
Just sent out pre-release copies to our current customers. They will be available to purchase within the next 24hrs as we need to update the website first.
Nice, ill be first in line after you update your website.
Thank you Andy, I received the email and can not wait to test...thank you for all your hard work sir.
We just released our Cinelog for DaVinci Resolve LUTs and for the next 24hrs (20.00/8PM GMT) we will include a FREE copy (sent manually via separate email) with any new purchase of a CinelogDCP for ACR. Current customers should already have received an email from us. After this they will revert to separate products and a discounted bundle.
http://www.cinelogdcp.com/cinelog-luts-for-resolve/ (http://www.cinelogdcp.com/cinelog-luts-for-resolve/)
Quote from: Andy600 on April 10, 2014, 09:11:24 PM
We just released our Cinelog for DaVinci Resolve LUTs and for the next 24hrs (20.00/8PM GMT) we will include a FREE copy (sent manually via separate email) with any new purchase of a CinelogDCP for ACR. Current customers should already have received an email from us. After this they will revert to separate products and a discounted bundle.
http://www.cinelogdcp.com/cinelog-luts-for-resolve/ (http://www.cinelogdcp.com/cinelog-luts-for-resolve/)
hey andy i just bought a davinci cinelog package instead of the acr version and get the davinci version for free; is it possible that you can give me the acr version for free since i bought it in this 24 hrs period? the mail i used to buy it is:
[email protected]i really dont use acr for raw video, but it would be nice to have it for the timelapses i process through acr.
cheers.
I just tried it on a tight project. From shooting to delivery I had just 48h for a 3min trailer in RAW. In the beginning, I took a two way workflow, as the logs are new and I didn't want to risk anything. But after seeing the first results, I did the rest with your cinelog files only, getting more confident clip by clip.
You did a realy great job!
Quote from: arturochu on April 11, 2014, 06:32:46 AM
hey andy i just bought a davinci cinelog package instead of the acr version and get the davinci version for free; is it possible that you can give me the acr version for free since i bought it in this 24 hrs period? the mail i used to buy it is: xxxxxx
i really dont use acr for raw video, but it would be nice to have it for the timelapses i process through acr.
cheers.
Yes, no problem :). What is your camera model?
btw, I suggest removing your email address from your post or the spambots will get it ;)
Quote from: kontrakatze on April 11, 2014, 07:44:03 AM
I just tried it on a tight project. From shooting to delivery I had just 48h for a 3min trailer in RAW. In the beginning, I took a two way workflow, as the logs are new and I didn't want to risk anything. But after seeing the first results, I did the rest with your cinelog files only, getting more confident clip by clip.
You did a realy great job!
Thanks, that's good to hear :)
@Andy600
seems you forgot my question about compatibility with raw2cdng. i just read on your page, you use primarly 14bit-data?
Quote from: Andy600 on April 11, 2014, 11:55:55 AM
Yes, no problem :). What is your camera model?
btw, I suggest removing your email address from your post or the spambots will get it ;)
thanks i'll take that for consideration in future posts, 5d mark iii.
cheers
Quote from: chmee on April 12, 2014, 01:56:47 AM
@Andy600
seems you forgot my question about compatibility with raw2cdng. i just read on your page, you use primarly 14bit-data?
Hi Chmee, Yes, sorry I didn't have a proper chance to test the new .mlv to CDNG workflow with Cinelog in ACR. I'll try and do it today and amend our information for your app.
thanks a lot.
@Chmee - I've tested .raw and .mlv with the latest raw2cdng and it's working correctly with Cinelog and other DCPs in ACR 8)
I've amended our website info and added links to your app ;)
Cheers!
@Andy600 cheeeriooo. thanks. regards chmee
I bought Cinelog Resolve LUT today.
Amazing... Now I don't need Light Room anymore! I was waiting this LUT in this 1 year.
pdf guide is very kindly.
Already looking forward to see new LUT and tutorial video.
Respect to your great work.
Andy, when shooting raw with the 50D, which produces a less than FHD frame size, I was wondering where in the post workflow (using Cinelog) you would upscale the image for the least image degradation? Also, what sort of enlargements in your opinion are reasonable from a raw image? I'm shooting 2.39:1 1584 x 674, with a view to enlarging to 2K, which for DCI 2.39:1 is 2048 x 858 - roughly a 29% enlargement. Do you think 29% would reveal visible artefacts?
Hi,
Just bought the Cinelog package and started to test it.
Seems to be very good when used with ACR compared to BMC to Cinelog export in Resolve (weird colors an things)
For the moment my top workflow is ACR + neat export to DnxHD 444for grading. I keep testing
Great job guys ! :)
Quote from: kardolan on April 17, 2014, 01:41:21 AM
Hi,
Just bought the Cinelog package and started to test it.
Seems to be very good when used with ACR compared to BMC to Cinelog export in Resolve (weird colors an things)
For the moment my top workflow is ACR + neat export to DnxHD 444for grading. I keep testing
Great job guys ! :)
I second that! Have been using the Resolve LUTs since they came out and the results are magnificent. Apart from that, the workflow via Resolve is so much faster, it just takes you where you want to go in no-time compared to using ACR.
@TrueIndigo - It depends on if you are using ACR or Resolve. I would always opt for scaling from raw and if you are using Resolve you should be able to get fairly decent 2k as it is (according to Blackmagic) 'optical quality'. If you're not using a VAF OLPF you might get better results by reducing raw sharpening in the Resolve raw panel. If you're using ACR then upscaling while transcoding can add significant render time. In this case I would render intermediates with no scaling and with ACR sharpness off then upscale in Resolve. I have found I get better results with sharpening off and then adding either a HPF to enhance detail or unsharp mask set to about 0.6. If you are upscaling crop [1:1] footage you can add some sharpening at the raw stage.
@kardolan - 'weird colors' in Resolve sounds very much like a white balance issue but it could be that your raw converter app is embedding different color matrices in your DNGs. Resolve's BMD film profile expects to see BM camera footage which have different white points and means you will always need to adjust WB manually before rendering. You also cannot use the WB settings that ACR would pick for the same shot in Resolve for the same reason. Can you send me a frame where you are seeing this and I'll check, also let me know what you use to convert raw to dng. It is unlikely to be caused by the LUTs as they are quite neutral.
@MGerard - Thanks :)
Thanks for your positive comments guys. There's lots more to come from us ;)
Is there a video showing how to work with this tool?
@Andy600 My mistake, I've check the file and my workflow was wrong, it was just BMC log applied to DNG which result in purple fringes on a black shiny pant ... ok I'm a bit extreme ! :P
@DavidSH - Currently in production. If you have used ACR or DaVinci Resolve you'll have no problem. There are basic instructions in the accompanying PDF guides. I'll post a link to the basic workflow video tuts when they are online.
@kardolan - ah, the old purple fringe problem! :D This one is easy to fix in Resolve by blurring RGB channels and adding a bit of saturation back. I'll upload a Resolve Powergrade (preset) to the user area soon. I just need to find an image with heavy fringing.
Andy600, what is your method of converting MLV to CDNG? Does it matter which app you use in your experience.
Do you have a VAF for your 50D or do you just use crop mode all the time? Cuz I don't see moire in your shots.
To be honest I want to mimic your process as much as possible because it is EXACTLY how I want my footage to look.
@50Deezil - I don't have a VAF (yet) and I do get horrendous aliasing and moire at times so I tend to be careful about what I film in non-crop mode and also bin shots that are too far gone. I shoot a lot in crop but when I do shoot non-crop it helps to use older glass that is less than perfect and doesn't resolve as well as modern lenses. My favorite lens for non-crop is an old Nikon F2.0 28mm and I try to keep the aperture under F8. I also have an old Auto Revuenon 50mm F1.4 that is pin sharp from F2.0 - F11. At F1.4 it blooms a little but this actually helps reduce moire and aliasing and the DOF is great.
For converting, I keep trying different apps. My current fav for .mlv is Chmee's latest raw2cdng. I've noticed some interesting and perfect round pixel artifacts can be introduced in spectral highlights with Tony Beccar's mlv batch converter when debayering in Resolve but I'm still testing various ML setups to be sure it's not me before posting a bug report.
@Sync24fps's 50D video is making the VAF more tempting http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9852.msg111571#msg111571
Hi, I took some time yesterday to make a quick tutorial about my Cinelog / Resolve workflow.
http://vimeo.com/92312408
Please enjoy.
Thanks Andy600. I'm gonna have some weddings and commercials to shoot over the next few months. I'll try to use the 50D as much as possible. I too am on the fence about the VAF. I saw a very good test where the guy added sharpening and it literally looked just about as detailed as the original shot without the filter. Still i'm going to be testing various lens and noise reduction processes to see how things go even without the filter. I don't shoot cityscapes. Mostly weddings, music videos, commercials and interviews. So I may be able to get away without the VAF.
Quote from: Andy600 on January 24, 2014, 06:05:11 PM
Hi guys,
Please excuse the shameless plug (I hope the mods are ok with me doing this ::) )
We just launched a new product called Cinelog which works with Adobe Camera Raw and most raw video shooting Canon cameras, plus the Digital Bolex and Blackmagic Cameras.
Full info is on our website www.cinelogdcp.com (http://www.cinelogdcp.com)
Unfortunately this release isn't a freebie (and yes we know there is something similar available for free) but Cinelog is true log space conversion for Magic Lantern Raw and other DNG based video and comes with a comprehensive LUT pack and guide.
If you have any questions or want sample frame conversions to test gradability let me know using the contact form.
I was very amused by this form the site: "Cinelog 2.0 is a pure, mathematical, logarithmic transformation curve"
I have never heard of a log-curve that wasn't mathematical. A gamma curve, too - is mathematical and logarithmic.
Not to mention a TRUE Log Space conversion. What is a FALSE Log Space Conversion - LOL
LOG is a super-hyped word these days, taking advantage of users' inexperience with the word and meaning of it.
Also... using a LUT to access a logarithmic boost of linear light is something that is half.way dangerous as it clips (clamps) the signal @ 0 and 1. So proceed with caution. Whereas if one would create his 'own' log space via curves in i.e. Resolve, he would not clip or clamp @ 0 and 1.
Logarithmic is utter standard in math. And NOT something out of the ordinary.
Unfortunately, when dealing with images - Logarithmic is used to generate money off of the laymen !
To get a basic understanding of Log, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithm
Not saying that logarithmic processing isn't of importance in color grading, it is... But every time you apply gamma to an image, you a basically applying a logarithmic curve to it.
Gamma is a power-function i.e. yourImage.XYZ = pow(yourImage.XYZ, 2) ; Raising yourImage.XYC(Red, Green & Blue Channels) to the 'power' of the exponent which in this case is 2.
Any value above 1 darkens the image. Lowering the exponent below 1 would basically brighten the image and 'Put it into this so-called LOG-Space... Combining multiple power functions will further influence the beloved 'Log Space' and produce diff. results.
Sorry to get grumpy on this one but I hate when standard math. is being sold off as astronomical NASA Surgery !
CF, thank you very much for explaining and elaborating on the mathematical terms Andy from Cinelog is using. Still, did you know that Canon, for example, have implemented an exponential gamma curve inside the 5D3 that does not give us true Rec.709 (but makes the images look "nicer")? And you clearly know what happens if you plot a logarithmic curve on an exponential one ... that will, by no means, result in a "true logarithmic gamma curve". That is, nonetheless, how other products marketed as "log color space" work. What Cinelog does is something different, hence the word "true". At this point I need to underline that I am not affiliated with Cinelog in any way. I am just using the product daily for processing footage I obtained via my 5D3 rig and the unbelievable possibilities (in regards to picture quality) that ML raw gives us, and especially Cinelog for Resolve is a huge step up in usability and time it takes to achieve professional results fast. Instead of spending hours on end waiting for ACR to do its job or trying to fix the look we get via other (respected) possiblities via Resolve, Cinelog speeds the workflow up and gives results that can be intercut with more expensive (true Rec.709) image capturing devices.
@CF - Thanks for your post :)
You seize on one word but neglect to mention several beneficial reasons for converting raw to Log. Not least of which is storage, archiving and efficiency of workflow.
As my full response is quite long and covers quite a bit I have posted my reply here http://www.cinelogdcp.com/q-and-a-1/ (http://www.cinelogdcp.com/q-and-a-1/)
In the meantime, this may amuse you ;)
Andy
@MGerard - Just to clarify the Canon native DSLR profiles they are all film gamma emulations with around 9-10 stops linear. They are derived from summing an exponential curve with a powerlaw curve that has a tweaked linear portion in the toe. This produces the telltale film-like gamma curve. It's not Rec.709 and as you will see when you load one of Adobe's profile 'remakes' in ACR they can clip at flat settings. The BMD Film profile curve in Resolve looks much the same. It's one of the reasons why DSLR footage shown on a TV can look flatter, darker and more filmic and hasn't got the punch and brightness of typical broadcast Rec.709 video. Of course, there is nothing inherently wrong with this 'look' aesthetically but it is a difference technically speaking.
I disagree there sorry, it all how you expose the image . Alot of people under expose
To much , and a log space can help fix the screw up. Log is so over rated there is no magic pill
For raw video just good hard work in a grading session . So no quick fixes !
@reddeercity - not sure who you are disagreeing with but an underexposed image, converted to log without first adjusting exposure when it's still raw, will still be under exposed after conversion and the image will exhibit more noise as a consequence of adding offset/gain. Correct exposure is of course fundamental to achieving the best SNR and usable dynamic range. Log is not a fix for underexposure.
Quote from: Andy600 on April 21, 2014, 01:34:34 PM
@CF - Thanks for your post :)
You seize on one word but neglect to mention several beneficial reasons for converting raw to Log. Not least of which is storage, archiving and efficiency of workflow.
Applying a logarithmic curve to an image does NOT, as above implies, convert RAW to Log. The image is STILL RAW, it is just being 'lifted' / 'Compressed' into a diff. gamma space.
This is what I mean, all this false word-mangling - to confuse a subject which at this present moment is about THE most confused topic on the web... (Next to how to keep a retina display clean)....
A REAL great advantage of a LOG Curve is when debayering is done In-Camera.... Before 'Converting' RAW to a Codec or 'Baking in' the linearization curve. When working with RAW files, it is pointless to use any ONE standard linearization curve (Log). It is VERY limiting, in fact. It would be like trying to apply ONE color-correction to each and every other clip. Which any colorist would know would be non-sense.
I LOVE working with RAW, as I don't have to work against any LOG Curve previously applied to the image. And I ALWAYS start with the linear representation of the image. Then I'll apply gamma to that. And to imply that applying an Rec709 workspace-LUT to a RAW-image will make it look like 'This and That' and adhere to this or that standard, is simply put; Wrong. After 'Putting' something into another 'Space' does NOT imply NOT having to further apply gamma, gain, offset etc. to that particular image... Gamma IS a logarithmic curve or function if you will...
When shooting RAW - the Canon Camera does NOT apply ANY Linearization Curve to the image. Hence RAW.... When shooting H.264 is DOES apply a curve to the image. And in THIS case of in-cam-debayering, the LOG Curve becomes important... CineStyle was a GREAT example of that. Technicolor KNOW what they are doing. But it would be UTTERLY non-sense to shoot RAW and then i.e. in Lightroom apply the Cinestyle LOG Space to the RAW-image. When shooting RAW, you HAVE to realize that you have the FULL DNA of the image-data, RIGHT THERE in the palm of your hands with all its might at your disposal. Simply loading a LUT with a generic LOG-Curve and apply that to each image, would be limiting yourself in EVERY regard.
Understanding RAW and how to develop it, is paramount for anyone shooting it. RAW is wonderful and just as wonderfully misunderstood and therefor, easy to make money off of.
Anyone, NOT 100% sure of what RAW is and how to handle it, should spend their good money on a good tutorial or book, rather than a LUT ;-)
Quote from: CF on April 21, 2014, 06:32:25 PM
Applying a logarithmic curve to an image does NOT, as above implies, convert RAW to Log. The image is STILL RAW, it is just being 'lifted' / 'Compressed' into a diff. gamma space.
This is what I mean, all this false word-mangling - to confuse a subject which at this present moment is about THE most confused topic on the web... (Next to how to keep a retina display clean)....
A REAL great advantage of a LOG Curve is when debayering is done In-Camera.... Before 'Converting' RAW to a Codec or 'Baking in' the linearization curve. When working with RAW files, it is pointless to use any ONE standard linearization curve (Log). It is VERY limiting, in fact. It would be like trying to apply ONE color-correction to each and every other clip. Which any colorist would know would be non-sense.
I LOVE working with RAW, as I don't have to work against any LOG Curve previously applied to the image. And I ALWAYS start with the linear representation of the image. Then I'll apply gamma to that. And to imply that applying an Rec709 workspace-LUT to a RAW-image will make it look like 'This and That' and adhere to this or that standard, is simply put; Wrong. After 'Putting' something into another 'Space' does NOT imply NOT having to further apply gamma, gain, offset etc. to that particular image... Gamma IS a logarithmic curve or function if you will...
When shooting RAW - the Canon Camera does NOT apply ANY Linearization Curve to the image. Hence RAW.... When shooting H.264 is DOES apply a curve to the image. And in THIS case of in-cam-debayering, the LOG Curve becomes important... CineStyle was a GREAT example of that. Technicolor KNOW what they are doing. But it would be UTTERLY non-sense to shoot RAW and then i.e. in Lightroom apply the Cinestyle LOG Space to the RAW-image. When shooting RAW, you HAVE to realize that you have the FULL DNA of the date, RIGHT THERE in your hands with all its might at your disposal. Simply loading a LUT with a generic LOG-Curve and apply that to each image, would be limiting yourself in EVERY regard.
Understanding RAW and how to develop it, is paramount for anyone shooting it. RAW is wonderful and just as wonderfully misunderstood and therefor, easy to make money off of.
Anyone, NOT 100% sure of what RAW is and how to handle it, should spend their good money on a good tutorial or book, rather than a LUT ;-)
Dear CF,
Thank you for your very detailed explanation,
As one who do not know about raw as you...
Why is there log space tab in speedgrade let say, containing rec709 and arri alexa and red etc' if log space is not needed?
Quote from: Andy600 on April 21, 2014, 05:48:56 PM
@reddeercity - not sure who you are disagreeing with but an underexposed image, converted to log without first adjusting exposure when it's still raw, will still be under exposed after conversion and the image will exhibit more noise as a consequence of adding offset/gain. Correct exposure is of course fundamental to achieving the best SNR and usable dynamic range. Log is not a fix for underexposure.
From what I was understanding, he meant that ANY imperfection in the image will be amplified by the application of the Log Curve. Which is true. There is NO... ONE log curve, for all images. This 'beloved' curve is totally dependent on exposure, weather conditions, specular highlights, fog etc etc etc.... with RAW... USE THE GAMMA, GAIN, OFFSET, LIFT or whatever exotic names your sliders are carrying, to get the image developed... Using a static LOG-Curve is a compromise and the better the know-how the better the result. ARRI is one company which Curves', Spaces' (whatever you wanna dub them) are great. Could one get better results without them... YES... IF he had the right knowledge of how to develop the images.
RAW is like negatives... You need a good developing-Lab to get good results.
Quote from: CF on April 21, 2014, 06:46:31 PM
RAW is like negatives... You need a good developing-Lab to get good results.
Very nice analogy.
Quote from: DavidSh on April 21, 2014, 06:44:02 PM
Dear CF,
Thank you for your very detailed explanation,
As one who do not know about raw as you...
Why is there log space tab in speedgrade let say, containing rec709 and arri alexa and red etc' if log space is not needed?
Speedgrade, handles all kinds of image formats and codecs... If footage has been shot in a LOG Space - it 'could' 'can' 'will' make sense to apply either an inverse of that particular log or directly operate on that image in Log-Space... It is diff. to explain without showing it off on a screen to someone without programming Experience... But in a nutshell - when applying a simple 'gain' to the vectors (RGB Channels) higher numbers (Pixel Values) will be more influenced, relatively, by that gain than lower numbers... When using a gamma function the closer any given number is to 0 or 1, the less the influence of the gamma function. So if you apply gamma to footage residing in a log space you will most likely affect the overall.
I know it seems complicated, but in reality it is not... Speedgrade has to deal with so much different footage, and has but one set of sliders, doing offset, gamma and gain. For those controls to work as intended, one would need 'stretch' the image to his advantage, so that gain affects the particular area of interest.. For instance... There is no such thing as a real offset. An offset can be achieve in several ways... (Try this yourself in Speedgrade) Click the plus button in the layers palette and load up the fxInversion... Invert ALL channels. Now duplicate the fxInversion layer.. When both layers are inverting you won't see the actual result... Now do this... Create a Primary Layer and move it, in between the two inversion layers. Now adjust the gain slider of the primary. The effect is an offset or Blacklevel or whatever you wanna call it.. The function is ---- 1.0 - theImage.rgb (This will invert the image and make the blacks white and vice versa... Then you apply gain to that results... --- theImage.rgb * 1.5 (Multiplication has greater effects on higher numbers the blacks, that are now whites will increase... After this, we re-invert the image so that the blacks (now whites) become black again.. 1.0 - theImage.rgb.... Programmatically, one would optimize the algorithm to look something like this 1.0-(1.0-(theImage.rgb*1.5)) - but above serves the explanation better. To take it even further, to affect certain areas of the blacks more than others, one would apply a power function to the above algorithm and you would then have a slider often referred to as a Pivot...
I hope my attempt to explain the matter was not too weird !
I personally love Speedgrade and the way it handles RAW. It serves me the images as Linear as they are. All green, very ugly and extremely unusable, initially. However, I can do ANYTHING to them that I want - a developers dream. And I don't need to work against any Lightroom, Da Vinci Resolve Linearization Curves. It is easier to apply to a linear RAW, the amount of Gamma or whatever one needs than to try and take it off those auto-pilot algorithms. Resolve to me is like Lightroom - Automatic as H*** and I don't like that. SG (I am NOT working for adobe) is IMO the most fantastic software I have ever used.
Weird and ugly interface, almost no documentation but with a POWER and potential that no other app has ;-)
So if anyone wants to learn, get a premature heart attack, get unprecedented development possibilities and have fun all at the same time, try Speedgrade ;-)
@CF - I think you are completely missing the point of Cinelog. Several in fact. Which is odd, because I explained them clearly. ???
Of course, working with the raw digital negative DNG will give you the most options and the best quality. I even said so clearly in my reply to you ::)
BUT
How are you archiving your footage? Are you storing all your raw files? Are you working on features running into hundreds of GB or more of storage for your DNGs? Have you got a very fast machine to debayer raw in realtime or are you using proxies? (another step). It may come as some surprise to you but the majority of people here are not working on the latest Mac Pro with huge raids and infinite storage. My guess is that if anything you are probably working with Cineform raw!? Which I even recommended OVER AND ABOVE any other method including Cinelog but Cineform Raw also comes at a price.
You obviously have no grasp of the intended use of Cinelog or those who will use it. As I also said in my reply we do have several professional users (DITs, colorists and DPs) who do know their subject and likely understand a considerable amount more than you.
Not everyone is comfortable working in Resolve but Resolve Lite (which is FREE) can be utilized to debayer and render much faster than ACR meaning you can work with the next best thing to the raw DNGs in an EFFICIENT codec in whatever NLE you choose and usually in realtime on a lower spec system.
No we can't presently do anything about debayering in Resolve but we have a fully featured DIT app coming that will ;)
To insinuate that our work is there purely to make money from users who do not poses certain knowledge or skills is highly ignorant, insulting to our customers and bordering on slander! Just because you have a system that works for YOU does not mean it will work for everyone else. The same can be said of what we offer but oddly enough, as I pointed out in my reply to you, our customers which includes professionals are satisfied with what we offer.
I suggest you look beyond your own blinkered view and 'post-production' environment and understand that there is in fact a big demand for what we offer, just as there is for what VisionLog and others offer. Why do you think ARRI, Sony, Canon, Blackmagic, Red (I could go on) have Log gamma recording in their raw capable cameras? WE cannot record to 10bit ProRes HQ with a log profile in-camera but I can tell you one thing. It's probably the #1 feature request in DSLRs and just as with most DPs who shoot on the big cameras MOST WILL SHOOT LOG encoded ProRes or DNxHD (some even record to Cineform ;) ). While we cant record compressed in-camera we can do it in post in a controlled way (exposure, white balance happens BEFORE the Log transform) and have all the space and timesaving benefits of log encoded media. No it's not 14bit raw anymore but it grades very nicely :) plus you can store the files easily! Oh, did I mention realtime playback, no need for proxies, easy set-up an rendering and technical support? :)
Oh, just saw your comments about LR and DaVinci Resolve - That says a lot ;)
Have a nice evening.
Discussion breaker. Case closed. I like colors. Do you? Wait, what?
Quote from: tjaja on April 21, 2014, 08:05:15 PM
Discussion breaker. Case closed. I like colors. Do you? Wait, what?
8)
Andy, I was not insinuating anything. I was being straight forward in my writing. I don't think that I said that your product wasn't going to provide anyone with results. I got involved in this thread as per what I wrote in my posts... " true log space conversion" etc etc etc...
If anyone was insinuating anything, it was that you ;-)
I use SG for real-time Debayering on rMBP with a fast SSD. Resolve gets me 12 frames per second. SG a WHOLE lot more. I don't need more than the rMBP. I work with cDNG Directly and archive in PR4444.
Would never use Cineform. Never had any good experience with that codec or software.
Anyway.... Nice evening to you to :)
Quote from: CF on April 21, 2014, 07:40:58 PM
I personally love Speedgrade and the way it handles RAW. It serves me the images as Linear as they are. All green, very ugly and extremely unusable, initially. However, I can do ANYTHING to them that I want - a developers dream. And I don't need to work against any Lightroom, Da Vinci Resolve Linearization Curves. It is easier to apply to a linear RAW, the amount of Gamma or whatever one needs than to try and take it off those auto-pilot algorithms. Resolve to me is like Lightroom - Automatic as H*** and I don't like that. SG (I am NOT working for adobe) is IMO the most fantastic software I have ever used.
Weird and ugly interface, almost no documentation but with a POWER and potential that no other app has ;-)
So if anyone wants to learn, get a premature heart attack, get unprecedented development possibilities and have fun all at the same time, try Speedgrade ;-)
:-)
Thank you for that...
why is that ugly green? and what is the best way to get rid off? (when i use direct link from premiere its not there...)
Quote from: DavidSh on April 21, 2014, 08:23:27 PM
:-)
Thank you for that...
why is that ugly green? and what is the best way to get rid off? (when i use direct link from premiere its not there...)
No clue about the green. My best bet is that SG is not reading the metadata of the RAW cDNG. In PPRO the the image is Magenta and has a 2.2 Gamma curve applied to it as well, to make things even more complicated. Green and Magenta is basically the same, or should I say opposite thing ;-)
I've been beta testing a SG Plug-In dealing with this. If and when it's up for public release, I don't know !
MEH!!! I have a low level of technical knowledge about this subject. I bought Cinelog because I needed a low cost, low CPU/GPU/Storage overhead, Easy to use workflow. I wanted great results and from everything I saw this product could help get to great results for a relative noob like me. I don't care about what seems to me to be an argument over semantics or purist techno babble. For me workflow and end results are everything.
Quote from: CF on April 21, 2014, 08:39:46 PM
No clue about the green. My best bet is that SG is not reading the metadata of the RAW cDNG. In PPRO the the image is Magenta and has a 2.2 Gamma curve applied to it as well, to make things even more complicated. Green and Magenta is basically the same, or should I say opposite thing ;-)
I've been beta testing a SG Plug-In dealing with this. If and when it's up for public release, I don't know !
Maybe something to do with BayerGreenSplit or lack off in the DNG tag?
Quote from: Andy600 on April 21, 2014, 08:56:36 PM
Maybe something to do with BayerGreenSplit or lack off in the DNG tag?
I've tried changing the EXIF Tags... SG doesn't care one Bit ;-)
Quote from: Andy600 on April 21, 2014, 08:56:36 PM
Maybe something to do with BayerGreenSplit or lack off in the DNG tag?
No, SG just doesn't read the matrix even if the tags are there. It requires you to input it or the raw white balance values.
Quote from: iaremrsir on April 21, 2014, 09:09:59 PM
No, SG just doesn't read the matrix even if the tags are there. It requires you to input it or the raw white balance values.
So why it does not do that when you open it using direct link from premiere?
Quote from: DavidSh on April 21, 2014, 09:30:49 PM
So why it does not do that when you open it using direct link from premiere?
Because Direct Link uses Premiere's debayer settings for all file formats. That's why the SpeedGrade app as a copy of all of the Premiere Pro importer plugins and effects.
Quote from: iaremrsir on April 21, 2014, 09:53:17 PM
Because Direct Link uses Premiere's debayer settings for all file formats. That's why the SpeedGrade app as a copy of all of the Premiere Pro importer plugins and effects.
Read this, it will fix that green cast in SG. (Need to load a .look file with values for the colormatrix ) Its because the black level has been change for Cdng in Premiere Pro without any pink cast at 16bit Cdng
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5618.msg111704#msg111704
Quote from: reddeercity on April 22, 2014, 12:02:34 AM
Read this, it will fix that green cast in SG. (Need to load a .look file with values for the colormatrix ) Its because the black level has been change for Cdng in Premiere Pro without any pink cast at 16bit Cdng
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5618.msg111704#msg111704
I know this already, but the point I was trying to make for him was that SG doesn't actually use its own demosaic and color transforms for footage when in Direct Link with Premiere.
Ok got it ;)
Just converted my RAW footage via the ACR -> Cinelog -> DxHD 444 process and it looks like it's a killer combo :)
The only thing that is a bit annoying is the time for processing and exporting that is way slower than the Resolve.
Come back to post some graded results to you guys as soon as I've finished the editing and my current job ;)
Quote from: kardolan on April 26, 2014, 10:10:16 PM
Just converted my RAW footage via the ACR -> Cinelog -> DxHD 444 process and it looks like it's a killer combo :)
The only thing that is a bit annoying is the time for processing and exporting that is way slower than the Resolve.
Come back to post some graded results to you guys as soon as I've finished the editing and my current job ;)
Id love to see some actual video clips of the results of this process, so thanks in advance!
Hi All, slightly new to ML Raw but not new to log grading, but I had a few questions about ML specifics. From what Im reading, it appears the ACR route is still better than Resolve but WAY slower? I ask because I just bought the Resolve version and I was wondering if it was too late to be included in the group that received the ACFR version as well? Many thanks!
Im shooting on a 7d raw. Thanks for your help!
@Jbowdach - Check your email ;)
There is a section of the Cinelog Resolve LUTs guide that details the differences between ACR and Resolve. ACR has the edge in some things but Resolve is much faster.
@mixmastermike - We have just about finished the first overview and basic tutorial videos but I'm not in the office and can't upload them until tomorrow. There are a few videos that use Cinelog on Vimeo. Just search for Cinelog by date. The videos begin about 2 weeks ago.
A couple of the videos are using a beta of Cinelog-C (no color) which is part of our new, simple recipe system for applying color depending on the final look you are aiming for. The Cinelog-C input LUTs go from no color, flat for maximum flexibility, Photometric for ENG/Documentary work and a new, Alexa inspired Film Matrix for use of Print Film Emulation LUTs (Kodak, Fuji etc). All the new LUTS are center weighted, Log-C compatible. Using different combinations of input and output LUTs will achieve very different looks. This will be a free update :)
Many thanks. Looking forward to the Logc updates luts!
@andy600
Thanks, Ill check out Cinelog on vimeo
Quote from: Andy600 on April 27, 2014, 11:32:11 AM
A couple of the videos are using a beta of Cinelog-C (no color) which is part of our new, simple recipe system for applying color depending on the final look you are aiming for. The Cinelog-C input LUTs go from no color, flat for maximum flexibility, Photometric for ENG/Documentary work and a new, Alexa inspired Film Matrix for use of Print Film Emulation LUTs (Kodak, Fuji etc). All the new LUTS are center weighted, Log-C compatible. Using different combinations of input and output LUTs will achieve very different looks. This will be a free update :)
when can we expect the final release of the Log-C combo?
also you told me you were gonna send me the acr version of cinelog, since i bought cinelog for resolve in the first 24 hrs, still waiting. ::)
Quote from: arturochu on April 27, 2014, 11:41:35 PM
when can we expect the final release of the Log-C combo?
also you told me you were gonna send me the acr version of cinelog, since i bought cinelog for resolve in the first 24 hrs, still waiting. ::)
Hi Chu,
Cinelog-C - It will be within the next couple of weeks
ACR version - I did send it but I will send it again :)
Did you receive/download the Resolve LUT update last week?
Quote from: Andy600 on April 28, 2014, 01:13:31 AM
Hi Chu,
Cinelog-C - It will be within the next couple of weeks
ACR version - I did send it but I will send it again :)
Did you receive/download the Resolve LUT update last week?
got your mail from today and i did recieved the lut update from last week, thx!
Cheers
Quote from: Andy600 on April 28, 2014, 01:13:31 AM
Hi Chu,
Cinelog-C - It will be within the next couple of weeks
ACR version - I did send it but I will send it again :)
Did you receive/download the Resolve LUT update last week?
I would love to get my hands on that beta of Cinelog-C! Need any beta testers?
I'm not sure I understand the differences in going thru ACR versus Resolve or even RawTherapee to debayer. Which will yield the best results regardless of time and what is the actual visual difference?
Quote from: 50Deezil on April 30, 2014, 08:11:32 PM
I'm not sure I understand the differences in going thru ACR versus Resolve or even RawTherapee to debayer. Which will yield the best results regardless of time and what is the actual visual difference?
ACR and Resolve are two different ponys rides that end at the same camp. They use very different methods of "debayering" the raw data, and both have the positives and negatives (which can be found on this forum), but both are valid methods of working. It's truly whichever YOU prefer and which you are most comfortable with. If they all seem "challenging", try learning one, see the results, try the other and compare which you like.
Personally, I'm a colorist who works in Resolve for the past year or so (long before I started w ML Raw). With that being said, It's a software package I'm already very familiar so its my clear choice for processing. I'm sure if I tried ACR, i would find slightly different results but still be pleasant but, because post is already a lot of work, do what works best for you. Read the comparisons, try some testing yourself if you are curious, but they both work very well.
I've just bought Cinelog with Resolve LUTs and I'm going to test Resolve -> Cinelog -> Prores 4444 or 422 HQ -> FCPX on my new footage. I'm going to post my conclusions later.
so Ive spent some time grading some regular MLV, some cinelog and some visionlog. Something unique I noticed with Cinelog is that it compressed the curve significantly more than visionlog, but seem to "stretch" out without any depredation at all (hopefully that would replicate if rendered to out a ProRes 444 or 422HQ). Does the more highly compressed curve more realistically mimic log?
Im also little confused how we can do a LogC conversion besides applying the Luts directly via a separate node (which seems to work w/o issue) as applying via a monitor put seems to only apply as a viewing Lut, no applying it to out footage.
Lastly, i was curious what Cinelog color and how it compares to stock MLV, Visionlog converted, cinelog, and Cinelog converted to LogC. This is all within Resolve 10 and not ACR, if that wasn't already made clear.
Many thanks for your help!
Jason
7D Raw (fw 2.0.3 and TL)
Lexar 1000x Card
I've tried the davinci stuff and I like it.
My workflow now is: in Davinci go to cinelog with a lut and export it to prores (4444), then in premiere I go back from cinelog to c-log (alexa one) and apply film convert where I choose for the alexa c-log option as well.
My colors seem a bit harsh like this right out of the box, nothing that can be fixed though.
I was wondering if this is a good workflow. Isn't it better to go directly to c-log in davinci?
Quote from: Metsadah on May 06, 2014, 08:16:25 AM
I've tried the davinci stuff and I like it.
My workflow now is: in Davinci go to cinelog with a lut and export it to prores (4444), then in premiere I go back from cinelog to c-log (alexa one) and apply film convert where I choose for the alexa c-log option as well.
My colors seem a bit harsh like this right out of the box, nothing that can be fixed though.
I was wondering if this is a good workflow. Isn't it better to go directly to c-log in davinci?
Yesterday I exported my footage from dng -> cinelog > c-log in Resolve. It's much faster than export in AE... I can play my cdng footage in Resolve 24fps with luts applied so it's really nice for editing. I applied also a sharpening just before setting cinelog -> c-log lut using nodes with saturation set to 0, luma gain to 0,01 and layer mixer. I really don't know if it's a good approach to perform sharpening with log footage but it looks fine for me.
Been fun learning how to use Cinelog with Resolve 10. I've been running my MLV's thru MLVMystic using the 2x2 Chroma smoothing. So far everything looks pretty good. It took a bit of work for me to figure out how to get my White Balance right, but it's getting easier as I keep practicing. I've got some Commercials and a Wedding coming up over the next few months. Should be ready by then. Amazing how good the 50D can look considering it's older than any other DSLR I have. VERY HAPPY with Cinelog so far. Still got a lot to learn about Color Grading etc.
My new video:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11765.0
Workflow: mlv_dump > [ Davinci Resolve -> Cinelog -> Arri Log-C -> Prores 4444 ] -> FCPX
Quote from: marekk on May 07, 2014, 11:38:36 AM
My new video:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11765.0
Workflow: mlv_dump > [ Davinci Resolve -> Cinelog -> Arri Log-C -> Prores 4444 ] -> FCPX
Marekk, how did you turn Cinelog to Arri Log C? Help?
Wondering if someone with more experience than me with using Log footage can help me wrap my head around "Why should I ever convert my RAW footage to Cinelog or any Log transformation?"...I have read the obvious answer provided by Cinelog that it is very helpful for storage, which yes seems very reasonable. I have been trying to work with this product and just still have not had that "AHHHHHHHH" moment.Maybe I am sure it is based on my novice and limited experience, but why should I convert my footage shot RAW to LOG, and then have to convert that footage to C-Log, and then color grade that footage to my liking. After all those transformations I can never seem to get my footage to anything that resembles anything other than flat and life less. I have a understanding that camera's like the Arri can capture in camera LOG footage and that has real benefit based on the real dynamic range it captures and leverage with post production. I have captured RAW footage with my 60d, color balanced in both ACR and Resolve (I have tried both workflows), applied Cinelog LOG and then C-Log to my footage and then have tried to color grade from there,but have ended up with real disappointing results. When I have used just ACR and no LOG transformation my footage is full of life and has real vibrance and it shows the capabilities of what RAW can do. Am I missing something here, why do you need to transform footage to LOG, just to try and get it back to what it was. Yes I am in no way a colorist, but I have worked very hard to learn basic concepts and important steps to create balanced footage, I want to achieve the film look (who doesn't right) so i thought the process of LOG tranformation would help me, but I just can not seem to make it look like anything that is epic or similar to what others have achieved. I am not bashing this product at all, i just need a better understanding of a work flow that can help me achieve excellent results. I read the manual also and it never mentioned to then transform Cinelog to C-Log, but I see others have done this? Maybe a explanation of that reasoning would be helpful. I come to the community as someone who just wants to improve my video skills, and have been very impressed with every single aspect ML has to offer, from the product to the forum. I have sent a message to the developer but never received a reply, so I thought I would just pose my conundrum right here. Thanks again, and any advice would be helpful.
@bennyray1 - I reply to every inquiry but didn't receive your email ??? Can you resend?
The Log-C transform was part of the DaVinci Resolve LUT pack. As you were an early customer you should have received an email from us about a month ago with a complimentary copy of the Resolve LUTS. Let me know if you didn't get it.
Re: raw to log - The main benefits are in storage. The image information can be compressed into log encoded, visually lossless 10bit video. This can be expanded back to linear with very little degradation and is a fraction the size of the raw DNG files. Log encoding also replicates how film negative responds to light.
We include a Cinelog to Rec709 LUT which expands your Cinelog video to Rec709 colorspace. You can then grade under the LUT (i.e. the Rec709 is the final stage) for quick results. Conforming Log footage to a workable, contrasty look without a LUT is actually very easy. You only need to use contrast/pivot and offset controls (as in DaVinci Resolve's Log controls) but you can also use the Cineon convertor in AE (we included an AE preset that replicates the Rec709 LUT) or AE/PP's Contrast and brightness plugins.
We are finalizing the new release called Cinelog-C. It's taking some time to achieve but we can now map with good accuracy, any raw DNG to any colorspace including Adobe, Sony SGamut + Cine, Wide Gamut, SMPTE-C etc and/or gamma (S-Log, S-Log2, AlexaV3Log-C, Rec709, ACES, Linear). For instance, we just mapped the Sony FS700/Odyssey 4K combination for a customer who wanted to transcode his raw CinemaDNGs to AlexaV3Log-C Wide gamut RGB ProRes444 as the stock sony/slog luts were pretty useless. He now has Sony footage that looks and behaves more or less like Log-C ProRes from the Alexa. The Alexa color separation is there. Your 60D will be able to do this too within limits ;) This may seem like a lot of jargon but it is actually a very powerful set of tools and to the best of my knowledge is the only LUT set that can do a reversible transform from/to Rec709/BMD Film. Essentially, we can take footage shot on your 60D and make it look like it was shot on a Sony, BMD, Alexa etc but obviously within the limits of your cameras sensor and DR.
@Andy600 When will the CINELOG-C LUTs be ready? So excited for those. Have been using 'bmd to cinelog 2.0' and 'cinelog to log-c' with good success on some videos, in combination with 'look' LUTs from Osiris.
Heres my workflow in Davinci Resolve (with pics) (All of the 'look' LUts are tweaked some post conversion, and that should be expected, mostly skin tones, but overall about 5 extra minutes of work..
BMD FILM
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5528/14133864085_9597091344.jpg)
TO: Cinelog 2.0
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/14110678836_b357f4c583.jpg)
TO: LOG-C (from Cinelog 2.0 to LOG-C LUT)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7345/14153926333_913ed4d126.jpg)
At this point the possibilities are endless... Grade your own way or go the route of Look LUTs, like Osiris, Film emulation LUTs, etc.
Here are a few of the Osiris LUTs from this point:
DK79 LUT
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7321/14153928463_2f0d1e9ec0.jpg)
VISION 4 LUT
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2938/13947223190_281eae8ab2.jpg)
JUGO LUT
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7444/14134200394_5a45383e0d.jpg)
M31 LUT
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5182/13947301210_39af8ee3cc.jpg)
KDX LUT
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5521/14154014103_0c4b3c91dc.jpg)
Again as with all LUTs, tweaking per shot afterwards is essential. But this should give you the idea that any look is possible, with the right starting point, and some nice finishing LUTs or your own custom look.
Enjoy. To see the video I made using this workflow:
https://vimeo.com/93175308
Quote from: Andy600 on May 08, 2014, 02:22:27 AM
@bennyray1 - I reply to every inquiry but didn't receive your email ??? Can you resend?
The Log-C transform was part of the DaVinci Resolve LUT pack. As you were an early customer you should have received an email from us about a month ago with a complimentary copy of the Resolve LUTS. Let me know if you didn't get it.
Re: raw to log - The main benefits are in storage. The image information can be compressed into log encoded, visually lossless 10bit video. This can be expanded back to linear with very little degradation and is a fraction the size of the raw DNG files. Log encoding also replicates how film negative responds to light.
We include a Cinelog to Rec709 LUT which expands your Cinelog video to Rec709 colorspace. You can then grade under the LUT (i.e. the Rec709 is the final stage) for quick results. Conforming Log footage to a workable, contrasty look without a LUT is actually very easy. You only need to use contrast/pivot and offset controls (as in DaVinci Resolve's Log controls) but you can also use the Cineon convertor in AE (we included an AE preset that replicates the Rec709 LUT) or AE/PP's Contrast and brightness plugins.
We are finalizing the new release called Cinelog-C. It's taking some time to achieve but we can now map with good accuracy, any raw DNG to any colorspace including Adobe, Sony SGamut + Cine, Wide Gamut, SMPTE-C etc and/or gamma (S-Log, S-Log2, AlexaV3Log-C, Rec709, ACES, Linear). For instance, we just mapped the Sony FS700/Odyssey 4K combination for a customer who wanted to transcode his raw CinemaDNGs to AlexaV3Log-C Wide gamut RGB ProRes444 as the stock sony/slog luts were pretty useless. He now has Sony footage that looks and behaves more or less like Log-C ProRes from the Alexa. The Alexa color separation is there. Your 60D will be able to do this too within limits ;) This may seem like a lot of jargon but it is actually a very powerful set of tools and to the best of my knowledge is the only LUT set that can do a reversible transform from/to Rec709/BMD Film. Essentially, we can take footage shot on your 60D and make it look like it was shot on a Sony, BMD, Alexa etc but obviously within the limits of your cameras sensor and DR.
Andy600, I didn't download the Resolve LUT until the update. When I downloaded the updated LUT it only had the BMCC>Cinelog LUT. How can I get my hands on the LOG_C convertion LUT?
*Edit* I'm actually going to email you guys through the Cinelog website, instead.
Quote from: Andy600 on May 08, 2014, 02:22:27 AM
@bennyray1 - I reply to every inquiry but didn't receive your email ??? Can you resend?
The Log-C transform was part of the DaVinci Resolve LUT pack. As you were an early customer you should have received an email from us about a month ago with a complimentary copy of the Resolve LUTS. Let me know if you didn't get it.
Re: raw to log - The main benefits are in storage. The image information can be compressed into log encoded, visually lossless 10bit video. This can be expanded back to linear with very little degradation and is a fraction the size of the raw DNG files. Log encoding also replicates how film negative responds to light.
We include a Cinelog to Rec709 LUT which expands your Cinelog video to Rec709 colorspace. You can then grade under the LUT (i.e. the Rec709 is the final stage) for quick results. Conforming Log footage to a workable, contrasty look without a LUT is actually very easy. You only need to use contrast/pivot and offset controls (as in DaVinci Resolve's Log controls) but you can also use the Cineon convertor in AE (we included an AE preset that replicates the Rec709 LUT) or AE/PP's Contrast and brightness plugins.
We are finalizing the new release called Cinelog-C. It's taking some time to achieve but we can now map with good accuracy, any raw DNG to any colorspace including Adobe, Sony SGamut + Cine, Wide Gamut, SMPTE-C etc and/or gamma (S-Log, S-Log2, AlexaV3Log-C, Rec709, ACES, Linear). For instance, we just mapped the Sony FS700/Odyssey 4K combination for a customer who wanted to transcode his raw CinemaDNGs to AlexaV3Log-C Wide gamut RGB ProRes444 as the stock sony/slog luts were pretty useless. He now has Sony footage that looks and behaves more or less like Log-C ProRes from the Alexa. The Alexa color separation is there. Your 60D will be able to do this too within limits ;) This may seem like a lot of jargon but it is actually a very powerful set of tools and to the best of my knowledge is the only LUT set that can do a reversible transform from/to Rec709/BMD Film. Essentially, we can take footage shot on your 60D and make it look like it was shot on a Sony, BMD, Alexa etc but obviously within the limits of your cameras sensor and DR.
Thank you very much sir, and yeah I know using your product is not just a easy fix, I must work at it...and every situation is completely different, and my taste is simply my taste. I am going to continue to better my skills with your product and will simply get better at the combination of possibilities for grading on a situational bases. I really appreciate the customer service, and you taking to time to enlighten me, I blame my lack of knowledge on the entire color space and will work to better my skills and finish a great product.I look forward to all updates sir,and again thank you for the time to answer my question.
Quote from: dossisman on May 08, 2014, 02:52:28 AM
Andy600, I didn't download the Resolve LUT until the update. When I downloaded the updated LUT it only had the BMCC>Cinelog LUT. How can I get my hands on the LOG_C convertion LUT?
*Edit* I'm actually going to email you guys through the Cinelog website, instead.
Thank you so much.
Quote from: Andy600 on May 08, 2014, 02:22:27 AM
@bennyray1 - I reply to every inquiry but didn't receive your email ??? Can you resend?
Log encoding also replicates how film negative responds to light.
Thank you, this is what I was looking for, plus I think Resolve seems to be my issue. I am going to go back a do more with ACR, less noise and I seem to know the programs a lot more.Thanks again.
Okay getting better results, BMD film needs to be applied for sure before import of DNG's or the wrong color space will mess up everything...
Balanced BMD
Beginning BMD
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb284/bennyray1/BalancedBMD_114.jpg) (http://s204.photobucket.com/user/bennyray1/media/BalancedBMD_114.jpg.html)
Cinelog
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb284/bennyray1/Cinelog_111.jpg) (http://s204.photobucket.com/user/bennyray1/media/Cinelog_111.jpg.html)
C-Log
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb284/bennyray1/C-Log_112.jpg) (http://s204.photobucket.com/user/bennyray1/media/C-Log_112.jpg.html)
Vision 6 LUT
(http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb284/bennyray1/Lut-Vision6.jpg) (http://s204.photobucket.com/user/bennyray1/media/Lut-Vision6.jpg.html)
Quote from: Andy600 on May 08, 2014, 02:22:27 AM
We are finalizing the new release called Cinelog-C. It's taking some time to achieve but we can now map with good accuracy, any raw DNG to any colorspace including Adobe, Sony SGamut + Cine, Wide Gamut, SMPTE-C etc and/or gamma (S-Log, S-Log2, AlexaV3Log-C, Rec709, ACES, Linear). For instance, we just mapped the Sony FS700/Odyssey 4K combination for a customer who wanted to transcode his raw CinemaDNGs to AlexaV3Log-C Wide gamut RGB ProRes444 as the stock sony/slog luts were pretty useless. He now has Sony footage that looks and behaves more or less like Log-C ProRes from the Alexa. The Alexa color separation is there. Your 60D will be able to do this too within limits ;) This may seem like a lot of jargon but it is actually a very powerful set of tools and to the best of my knowledge is the only LUT set that can do a reversible transform from/to Rec709/BMD Film. Essentially, we can take footage shot on your 60D and make it look like it was shot on a Sony, BMD, Alexa etc but obviously within the limits of your cameras sensor and DR.
When? :o
New video:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11779.0
mlv -> mlv_dump -> [Resolve -> Cinelog -> Arri Log-C -> Prores 4444] -> FCPX
Quote from: Jpb1138 on May 08, 2014, 02:50:30 AM
Heres my workflow in Davinci Resolve (with pics) (All of the 'look' LUts are tweaked some post conversion, and that should be expected, mostly skin tones, but overall about 5 extra minutes of work..
you can try also to convert log-c to rec709 then to OSIRIS Rec709
Quote from: marekk on May 08, 2014, 01:39:37 PM
you can try also to convert log-c to rec709 then to OSIRIS Rec709
I actually do that occasionally when the LOG LUTs dont exactly get me what I expected and sometimes going to REC709 or taking log-c and correcting it myself to get it to REC709, then applying the 709 Osiris LUT is better. Actually the one pic I posted of DK79 was graded that way. Log-C corrected contrast and such to get it REC709ish and then I used the 709 DK79 LUT. Worked better than DK79 LOG...
jpb, which iso you used on the scenes on the bridge? thanks!!
Quote from: dia3olik on May 11, 2014, 03:46:04 AM
jpb, which iso you used on the scenes on the bridge? thanks!!
The walking wide shot was probably 3200 ISO... THe others between 2500-3200. More noise than Id like but not nearly as bad as other cameras. I did a slight noise reduction I think.
Quote from: Jpb1138 on May 08, 2014, 02:50:30 AM
Heres my workflow in Davinci Resolve (with pics) (All of the 'look' LUts are tweaked some post conversion, and that should be expected, mostly skin tones, but overall about 5 extra minutes of work..
Again as with all LUTs, tweaking per shot afterwards is essential. But this should give you the idea that any look is possible, with the right starting point, and some nice finishing LUTs or your own custom look.
Enjoy. To see the video I made using this workflow:
https://vimeo.com/93175308
Hi Jpb1138,
Could you post the DNG file you used to show us the various examples of your workflow?
I'd like to experiment with the same basis.
Thanks a lot!
Quote from: morsafr on May 12, 2014, 03:14:19 PM
Hi Jpb1138,
Could you post the DNG file you used to show us the various examples of your workflow?
I'd like to experiment with the same basis.
Thanks a lot!
Yeah I can do that. I will look for the DNG tonight. I will say the biggest thing I did that made it work even better is taking the log c converted LUT and lowering the contrast, before applying the Osiris LUTS.. I felt personally to my eye that they were just aslightly to contrasty for me. But I tend to like nice flat images.... nothing too crushed. Just blacks barely touching black. and keeping overall exposure middle to lower half of spectrum.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwsxk3snih7zlw9/M27-0505.000400.dng
here is a link to the dng file requested.
Thanks for the file Jpb1138!
I made such a comparison and i am quite amazed with the results:
Osiris LUTs in resolve vs premiere pro cs6 (via LUT buddy). Exactly the same footage with cinelog applied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3WALw31e4I&feature=youtu.be
Workflow:
- *.mlv to raw2cdng 1.5.0 beta3
- conversion to CDNG 16bit maximized
- imported to resolve lite 11
- bmd film>cinelog 2.0 v1.1>cinelog 2.0 to LOG-C
After that i continued in resolve, added nodes with different LUTs (using osiris "LOG" version of luts)
Than i have rendered the same footage in cinelog's LOG-C version (DNxHD 185 10bit) and imported into premiere.
Applied LUT buddy and loaded the same LUTs. Completely different looks in most cases. Why is that? It should be the same theoretically because starting point and LUTs are the same.
The biggest difference is how those LUTs handles green color (grass and trees). The only one LUT which looks almost the same in both apps is VISION 4. It is confusing. Did i missed some step in resolve concerning cinelog which caused such a difference? Which app better resembles the real LUTs appearance? Cheers
OK, haven't touched my cam in a while and gearing up for a small shoot. Last time around I basically did my correction in ACR and got the flicker. Would like to do it right this time. Is this workflow good (7D, Windows 8.1, Adobe software CC)?
1) Record in MLV
2) Use RAW2CDNG (is this better or no difference than RAW2DNG for Cinelog??)
3) Open sequence in After Effects. ACR will pop up
4) Use Cinelog profile, don't adjust anything other than white balance (what about noise/sharpening at this stage?)
5) Export sequence from After Effects as Cineform or DNxHD with trillions of colors (let's assume Cineform for now... though last time I checked they had problems with windows 8, hopefully that's fixed by now)
5.1) When exporting from AE, scale to 1920x1080 (instead of 1728x972)
6) Edit Cineform in Premiere, sync to sound.
7) Round Trip Premiere <-> SpeedGrade
8) Export from Premiere as Cineform for master or H264 for web
?
Quote from: kgv5 on May 13, 2014, 03:41:04 PM
I made such a comparison and i am quite amazed with the results:
Osiris LUTs in resolve vs premiere pro cs6 (via LUT buddy). Exactly the same footage with cinelog applied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3WALw31e4I&feature=youtu.be
Workflow:
- *.mlv to raw2cdng 1.5.0 beta3
- conversion to CDNG 16bit maximized
- imported to resolve lite 11
- bmd film>cinelog 2.0 v1.1>cinelog 2.0 to LOG-C
After that i continued in resolve, added nodes with different LUTs (using osiris "LOG" version of luts)
Than i have rendered the same footage in cinelog's LOG-C version (DNxHD 185 10bit) and imported into premiere.
Applied LUT buddy and loaded the same LUTs. Completely different looks in most cases. Why is that? It should be the same theoretically because starting point and LUTs are the same.
The biggest difference is how those LUTs handles green color (grass and trees). The only one LUT which looks almost the same in both apps is VISION 4. It is confusing. Did i missed some step in resolve concerning cinelog which caused such a difference? Which app better resembles the real LUTs appearance? Cheers
Strange indeed.
I will do the same test this week-end with FCP X.
Quote from: morsafr on May 14, 2014, 11:13:47 AM
Strange indeed.
I will do the same test this week-end with FCP X.
I have found that once rendered to Pro Res regardless of what program you use the LUTs behave differently. Even if exported as log-c from resolve. Even if you export as log-c pro res and then put the pro res files back into resolve they will look different than the DNG sequence with the same LUT.
14 bit raw vs. 10/12 bit prores is one reason. Also raw has more data period.
Quote from: dubzeebass on May 14, 2014, 02:48:42 PM
14 bit raw vs. 10/12 bit prores is one reason. Also raw has more data period.
This is not the case, raw via ACR with LUT applied also has completely different look (the same as imported DNxHD 10bit) than in resolve.
I guess my question is which look do you prefer? :D I mean it actually means we can have even more LOOKS via the different methods. It seems if the issue is repeatable and the results consistent with either Resolve/RAW vs DNxHD then it's a happy accident IMO.
So I did a little test yesterday... and ran into a crazy issue. This really applies more to After Effects/Avid than Magic Lantern or Cinelog, but figured this is as good a place as any to ask.
Basically, I encountered the same issue as here: https://forums.adobe.com/message/5226868#5226868
(can also read a bit about similar issue at https://forums.adobe.com/message/5331691)
When I try to export DNxHD 4:4:4 @ Trillions of Colors from after effects on windows- I get corrupt video!
Exporting @ Millions of colors looks fine to my eye. And strangely enough, importing that back in describes it as Trillions of Colors.
What's the bottom line- is that "Fuzzy Barsik" guy right, that the correct settings when exporting DNxHD 4:4:4 from AE on windows is to leave it at Millions of Colors and it will actually be 10-bit (and not lose information in the process, other than going to a technically-lossy codec)? i.e. it will be similar to have gone to ProRes 4:4:4 on Mac?
Also- is 10 bit DNxHD 4:4:4 better than the best free Cineform version? (I think it's something like 12-bit 4:2:2?)
Thanks!
how are the Log-C luts cooking? btw, are they gonna be for resolve or acr or both of them?
Quote from: kgv5 on May 13, 2014, 03:41:04 PM
h cinelog applied.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3WALw31e4I&feature=youtu.be
[omit]Which app better resembles the real LUTs appearance? Cheers
Resolve is rendering it correctly, something is going wrong somewhere through all these conversions w Premiere to end up with that image. Look at any M31 processed footage, its a very aggressive orange-teal LUT and its meant to be. In the resolve version, you can see that in the sky and especially in the grass. The PPro version is far too natural, while m31 is a very stylized LUT (example: http://vimeo.com/67060701 (http://vimeo.com/67060701)
Hello every one! Today I test Cinelog and RAW shot from 5D3 1.1.3 ML build 24April (2013 or 2014 say later)
I render with Data Level and no artifacts in highlites! All transcode OK! Even whith strong overblown arease! I use last input 3D LUT v 1.1 in Resolve.
Good job!!! Thanks guys!!
(http://i6.pixs.ru/thumbs/4/5/5/pic01JPG_4625180_12182455.jpg) (http://pixs.ru/showimage/pic01JPG_4625180_12182455.jpg) (http://i6.pixs.ru/thumbs/4/6/1/pic02PNG_1843796_12182461.jpg) (http://pixs.ru/showimage/pic02PNG_1843796_12182461.png) (http://i7.pixs.ru/thumbs/4/6/3/pic03PNG_4222655_12182463.jpg) (http://pixs.ru/showimage/pic03PNG_4222655_12182463.png) (http://i7.pixs.ru/thumbs/4/6/5/pic04PNG_6305953_12182465.jpg) (http://pixs.ru/showimage/pic04PNG_6305953_12182465.png)
Just bought the Cinelog LUT for Resolve last night. Very impressed! Most accurate Log conversion I've seen for the 5D so far!
am i the only one still waiting for a bmd -> log-c lut?
BMD - > Cinelog - > Log-c is included.
I bought the Cinelog LUT yesterday. Im very excited to test it out.
What are the Mac users using to convert the MLV files to DNG's? I've tried MLVMystic and MlRawViewer but did yet different results.
When will the LUT Bank be available for users?
Quote from: MennoB on June 05, 2014, 03:14:00 PM
I bought the Cinelog LUT yesterday. Im very excited to test it out.
What are the Mac users using to convert the MLV files to DNG's? I've tried MLVMystic and MlRawViewer but did yet different results.
When will the LUT Bank be available for users?
Rawmagic
Quote from: dubzeebass on June 04, 2014, 02:56:15 PM
BMD - > Cinelog - > Log-c is included.
thats why i was asking for BMD -> Log-C ;)
I would still love to see a comparison between VisionLog and CineLog before pulling the trigger. Anyone did such a clip?
Also, whats the status on the Lut-bank?
Website still says:
Quote(The LUT Bank is coming soon. Est. online mid-April).
when will this see an update? I purchased this assuming there was going to be continued development and an upcoming LUT bank as of April. Its now end of June. Lil much when you've convinced many to pay for some thing many have given away for free with VisionLOG and others. Just wondering what everyone else is thinking.
Yes, sorry it's taken so but it's a big update. The new colorspace has been through a lot of beta testing and it will also be supported (soon) in FilmConvert Pro.
Look luts are very hit and miss if the source colourspace isn't fully known (i.e. BMD Film). We've finalized Cinelog-C for Magic Lantern raw footage and will be adding input transforms for other cameras and colorspaces over the next few weeks. The new website features should go live this week but you will get the Cinelog-C update pack including the first 10 new look luts by email today or tomorrow at the latest :)
Cinelog-C is a wide gamut log space and you can revert ProRes/DNxHD/MXF 444 Cinelog-C encoded video to debayered linear RGB (as hdr .exr files) which means it's great for VFX work. This is visually indistinguishable from your Resolve debayered and white balanced raw footage. The new luts are very high res 65x65x65 3D (for color) and 12bit 1D shapers (for gamma) to minimize the risk of banding (TBH we haven't seen any banding ;) ) and we provide several output gammas including sRGB, REC709, Film Contrast, and a new ITU-R BT.1886 (2.4 gamma) that is used by a lot of facilities for TV deliverables.
We haven't tried it with VisionColor's new Impulz film luts but they should work nicely together. I need to buy the set to test and we will provide a conversion if needed.
@Andy600 Can your upcoming Cinelog-C for Magic Lantern Raw be applied as a LUT in Premiere? I want to avoid the ACR/AE transcoding workflow so I plan to import ML cDNG files created by MLRawViewer. The new Lumetri effect in Premiere CC will let you apply a LUT without needing to launch Speedgrade. Also, will your Cinelog-C match up well with Osiris LUTS or will another transformation be required?
@MA Visuals
The initial DNG/cDNG to Cinelog-C needs to be done in Resolve because it uses a special shaper lut (65x cube 3D + 12bit 1D) to convert from Linear RGB colorspace to Cinelog-C Wide gamut but the output and look luts should work fine in any .cube compatible NLE (we can convert to other lut formats if required). A lot depends on how Premier/AE sees levels (data or video) but we can do something to scale the output and look luts if there are levels issues in other apps. I'll add the recommended workspace settings for Premier/AE in the accompanying guide (I need to check what is best).
TBH I'm not sure if Lumetri can read hybrid shaper luts? ::). A 3D lut (even a big 65x65x65) doesn't have enough code values in the gamma part to accurately map every value needed for conversion to log so they can exhibit fine banding. If you debayer, white balance and transcode in Resolve first you should have no problems working with the footage in Premier. If you need to revert Cinelog-C back to linear RGB you'll need to go back to Resolve as that too is a shaper LUT (linear ouput should be .EXR or DPX to handle the dynamic range).
Re: Osiris - what source colorspace do VisionColor recommend for using Osiris? If it's VisionLog we would need to make something. If it's REC709/sRGB there is already a lut in the new pack that will do it (plus we can convert to other gamuts (if needed). I don't have either of their lut packs (yet - the Impulz filmscan pack looks promising) but we will work out the best solution if needed.
Quote from: Andy600 on June 23, 2014, 02:24:20 PM
Re: Osiris - what source colorspace do VisionColor recommend for using Osiris?
Osiris has luts for both rec709 and log (generic)
Impulz has quite a few, like rec709 generic, log-c, log generic, different bmd cameras, canon-log and much more. it has even got them for several DSLR picture styles including their own of course. then, each lut comes in 4 different styles: CIN, FC, FPE and VS. (cineon log compound gamma, film contrast gamma, film print emulation and vision space low contrast gamme)
Hope this helps you and hoping to get a mail from you soon ;)
Quote from: Andy600 on June 23, 2014, 02:24:20 PM
@MA Visuals
The initial DNG/cDNG to Cinelog-C needs to be done in Resolve because it uses a special shaper lut (65x cube 3D + 12bit 1D) to convert from Linear RGB colorspace to Cinelog-C Wide gamut but the output and look luts should work fine in any .cube compatible NLE (we can convert to other lut formats if required). A lot depends on how Premier/AE sees levels (data or video) but we can do something to scale the output and look luts if there are levels issues in other apps. I'll add the recommended workspace settings for Premier/AE in the accompanying guide (I need to check what is best).
TBH I'm not sure if Lumetri can read hybrid shaper luts? ::). A 3D lut (even a big 65x65x65) doesn't have enough code values in the gamma part to accurately map every value needed for conversion to log so they can exhibit fine banding. If you debayer, white balance and transcode in Resolve first you should have no problems working with the footage in Premier. If you need to revert Cinelog-C back to linear RGB you'll need to go back to Resolve as that too is a shaper LUT (linear ouput should be .EXR or DPX to handle the dynamic range).
Re: Osiris - what source colorspace do VisionColor recommend for using Osiris? If it's VisionLog we would need to make something. If it's REC709/sRGB there is already a lut in the new pack that will do it (plus we can convert to other gamuts (if needed). I don't have either of their lut packs (yet - the Impulz filmscan pack looks promising) but we will work out the best solution if needed.
For both OSIRIS and Impulz, what they recommend depends on the camera. If its a DSLR h264, they recommend a non-log but slightly flat profile (usually their own visioncolor\visiontech picture profile) and the LOG versions for RED, ALEXA, BMCC, BMPCC, Magic Lantern RAW etc. They have recommended using VisionLOG in between to standardize the "log", which Ive had decent success with both with OSIRIS and Impulz. I use the MLRAW VisionLOG luts in the Impulz package and the LOG luts for OSIRIS.
A neat trick i found if an Osiris LOG LUT was too intense and backing opacity down wasnt helping was to try the rec709 lut. I know, completely not how its supposed to be used, but it creatively suited the purpose.
Long story short: Yes, i believe OSIRIS is optimized for VISIONLog but i know plenty of people who use it on RED footage without issue. THat being said, RED footage doesnt have the strangeness that ML RAW set to BMD Film does, so we may need a intermediate conversion like VisionLOG or CineLOG to standardize
Is anyone using DaVinci Resolve 11?
After converting in ACR (tried both bridge & photoshop) to cinelog (and checking and updating metadata to confirm it saved in cinelog) when I import into Resolve 11, it does not show in log colourspace. Shows up as shot or prior to conversion in ACR. Tried on multiple clips & checked my monitor LUTs to make sure it was not that.
Anyone else with this issue?
Quote from: Andy600 on June 23, 2014, 12:32:24 PM
Yes, sorry it's taken so but it's a big update. The new colorspace has been through a lot of beta testing and it will also be supported (soon) in FilmConvert Pro.
Look luts are very hit and miss if the source colourspace isn't fully known (i.e. BMD Film). We've finalized Cinelog-C for Magic Lantern raw footage and will be adding input transforms for other cameras and colorspaces over the next few weeks. The new website features should go live this week but you will get the Cinelog-C update pack including the first 10 new look luts by email today or tomorrow at the latest :)
Cinelog-C is a wide gamut log space and you can revert ProRes/DNxHD/MXF 444 Cinelog-C encoded video to debayered linear RGB (as hdr .exr files) which means it's great for VFX work. This is visually indistinguishable from your Resolve debayered and white balanced raw footage. The new luts are very high res 65x65x65 3D (for color) and 12bit 1D shapers (for gamma) to minimize the risk of banding (TBH we haven't seen any banding ;) ) and we provide several output gammas including sRGB, REC709, Film Contrast, and a new ITU-R BT.1886 (2.4 gamma) that is used by a lot of facilities for TV deliverables.
We haven't tried it with VisionColor's new Impulz film luts but they should work nicely together. I need to buy the set to test and we will provide a conversion if needed.
I haven't recieved a single mail regarding the new Cinelog-C :( care to check? i'd love to star using it.
Quote from: arturochu on June 30, 2014, 05:50:29 PM
I haven't recieved a single mail regarding the new Cinelog-C :( care to check? i'd love to star using it.
same here... pretty disappointed with the service actually
Guys, I can understand your frustration and I'm truly sorry for the lack of updates although we do respond to support emails quickly.
We intended to release Cinelog-C last week but right at the last moment, Blackmagic released DaVinci Resolve 11 and we thought it better to fully re-test everything with the new release. After a couple of days testing in Resolve 11 we opted to add a new input lut for ML raw as the new BMD Film 4K profile is much better suited to it than BMD film. The DR of the 4K BM camera profile is very close to the Canons ~12 F-Stops (although you can use BMD Film or REC709/Linear too).
The new Lut pack is big and has a few nice surprises ;). I'm packaging everything and adding the last few bits to the guide that are relevant to Resolve 11+ today. You will receive your download details as soon as that is done and I promise it is worth the wait! Then I will put all my attention into getting the LUT bank online (finally). There is much more to come from us.
p.s. If you haven't already done so, I highly recommend updating to Resolve 11. The new color tools and color matching features are fantastic! :)
Take your time! Thanks so much for keeping us updated!
Andy I just sent you an email! (Paul Beauchamp)
Excited to hear about the new LUT pack and using Cinelog-C in Resolve 11. Can't wait to get my hands on it!
Quote from: beauchampy on July 08, 2014, 12:23:15 PM
Andy I just sent you an email! (Paul Beauchamp)
Excited to hear about the new LUT pack and using Cinelog-C in Resolve 11. Can't wait to get my hands on it!
Hi Paul,
Thanks! I've emailed you. We're just testing the new user account system. Current users will be able to set up an account and download Cinelog-C later today. It will be available for everyone else to purchase sometime in the next 24hrs.
There are more updates coming over the next few weeks and the website is being overhauled. The Lut Bank which includes brand new look luts, Resolve Powergrades, video tutorials and a community area will also be live just as soon as I've got it looking pretty ;)
hello,
i am very interested in your resolve 11 cinelog profile.. when i visit your site and click to the buy button there is a link to a "couldnt find the page"
so where can i buy it, and i would like to read the manual before.. is that possible.
thx.
@swinxx - the Buy page is working but we haven't added Cinelog-C yet. It will available within the next 12-24hrs but we want to make sure that our new login system is fully functional and that current users can download the update first. The manual is currently being updated.
hi andy600!
when i go to cinelog for resolve and then to "To purchase Cinelog LUTS for DaVinci Resolve please scroll to the bottom of our Buy page" it doesnt work..
it would be great if you can post a link with a manual and examples for your luts.. (i work with a canon 5d mk3 and resolve 11 now)..
i am interested cause i wanna know how to handle the imported material.. have read the impulz manual and it is a little bit unclear if those work with the raw material converted to bmdfilm or rec709..
its a mysterium for me now.
thx and i hope that you can clear up things for me.
re
@swinxx - The dropdown menu on the buy page should be working (you need to select a product then hit submit) but we're changing it anyway in the next few hours to something slicker.
No problem regarding the 'how to...'. We are making everything as clear as crystal because we want you to get the results you imagined!
There will be a lot of accessible content and basic info with the more advanced bits, Resolve tutorials, Powergrades, looks etc for members but you will be able to see what can be achieved (easily) with our gamut, output and print luts which come with Cinelog-C.
I still need to buy a copy of Impulz to test but I'm 100% sure they are compatible and will produce even better results when combined.
sounds great, so get back please when you have sorted everything.
greets. sw
I've been playing with the new Cinelog-C LUT pack.
So far - absolutely brilliant!
Finally a 1 LUT solution for bringing ML Raw to a very Alexa like flat image. The Rec709 monitor LUT is superb too - it's so easy to do primary correction now.
The real magic happens when you use Film Convert. I'm literally just doing primary corrections (as above), then removing the monitor LUT, slapping on a film convert node right after my primary - just that alone gives an amazing image! I'll usually do further correction after that.
Haven't had a chance to really get into the included PFE LUTs yet.. But I did have a quick play but my results seemed to be very contrasty.. I don't think I'm adding them correctly so I'll wait for the quick start guide on that one.
Great job!
Quote from: beauchampy on July 10, 2014, 02:10:28 PM
I've been playing with the new Cinelog-C LUT pack.
So far - absolutely brilliant!
Finally a 1 LUT solution for bringing ML Raw to a very Alexa like flat image. The Rec709 monitor LUT is superb too - it's so easy to do primary correction now.
The real magic happens when you use Film Convert. I'm literally just doing primary corrections (as above), then removing the monitor LUT, slapping on a film convert node right after my primary - just that alone gives an amazing image! I'll usually do further correction after that.
Haven't had a chance to really get into the included PFE LUTs yet.. But I did have a quick play but my results seemed to be very contrasty.. I don't think I'm adding them correctly so I'll wait for the quick start guide on that one.
Great job!
That's good to hear! :)
re: PFE lut contrast. They output gamma identical to the original film stock which is for Cinema projection, hence the higher contrast and is correct. We will add some extra pre-PFE 1D curve luts to make them easier for general video use but this can be done better by adding your own curve (or levels) just before the PFE. Simply raise shadows and drop highlights, adding back contrast to taste. Resolve 11's new highlight and shadow tools in the Colormatch panel are ideal for this as they can still be used after you have transcoded to Cinelog-C - just be careful of wide highlight haloing that can occur with extreme settings (this is why we are recommending users avoid aggressive use of highlight and shadow recovery in the Camera Raw panel at the render stage (but you won't know that as we still haven't uploaded the new guide yet :-X :D ) ... it's coming.
Incidentally, the main Cinelog-C luts are a very high resolution hybrid 1D/3D shapers. The monitor luts produce a true Rec709 or sRGB signal (SMPTE specs).
I gave the new luts a quick try with realy bad starting settings (almost no light, my son sitting bored in a chair waiting for the soccer match to begin), too. Very impressive, indeed! Finally there semms to be no need to use ACR any longer, which is a huge speedup. In Addition, filmconvert in DaVinci semms to work much nicer. Fact is, it put a big fat smile on my face, which it never did before without a LOT of tweaking.
Also not quite sure where and how to drop in the PFE logs, but that is not my primary goal anyway.
You did a great job and these luts are worth evey penny paid (and even more, to be true).
Regards,
Kontrakatze
Was there a mass email sent to all Cinelog owners? I didn't get anything about the new software.
@50Deezil - Yes, we sent a pre-release copy of Cinelog-C to all current users of the Resolve version. Can you PM me with your email address and I'll resend.
edit: Sorry! Just remembered. We did a one-off Paypal payment for you but this meant your details were not automatically added to our new database. I've added you manually and sent you the Cinelog-C update info. You should have an email from us now and will get future update mailouts when they are sent.
I bought the Adobe version before... and now just bought the resolve version... still don't see any login to the LUT bank on the website?
@dmk - You should have an email from us now :)
Yup, got it!
Download page is very odd brother... may I suggest:
1) Have only 1 download link for the package
2) Clarify whether the main package contains most up-to-date version or if user must replace with updates
Great!
Thanks for the advice. We have a new website about to launch which has user accounts, the Lut Bank members area (your user acc will give you access when it goes live) and much simpler/clearer downloads and purchasing. I'm pushing to get it online this week when we officially release Cinelog-C. :)
Great! For now... just tried dropping in the LUTs... couple questions
In the previous version, I put in Input LUT: BMD Film -> Cinelog 2.0, and then Output LUT: Cinelog 2.0 -> Log C
That worked pretty well... is Cinelog-C meant to be an improvement on that?
Not quite sure how to implement... I tried putting [INPUT] BMD Film 4K -> Cinelog-C as the Input LUT and the image does not look flat. Also not sure how one would then stack LUTs (assuming for example [GAMMA] is meant to go somewhere other than output...)
NM about it not looking flat- forgot I had a color correction node on that clip :)
But still, not quite sure about workflow... is input always meant to be BMD Film 4K -> Cinelog C, and then output is a film emulation? i.e. how would one get to Alexa-ish footage in the new LUTs?
@dmk - It works much the same ways as the previous version but converts straight to Cinelog-C wide gamut in Cineon gamma. The BMD Film 4K profile is much better suited to Canon DSLRs as the BM 4K camera has roughly the same DR as the 5D Mark III.
To use the BMD Film 4K to Cinelog-C you need to have Resolve 11 (currently in beta), otherwise you can use the BM Film to Cinelog-C input lut in Resolve 10 using the BMD Film profile. The end result is almost identical.
So, Import your footage to the timeline (as with the previous version), select BMD Film 4K in the Camera Raw panel, add the BMD Film 4K to Cinelog-C input Lut (either as a 3D Input Lut in the lut panel, or on the first clip node.) then either the sRGB or REC709 Monitor lut depending on your monitoring situation (add it in the monitor lut slot of the lut panel so it isn't rendered), make your white balance and exposure adjustments and render your clips to ProRes or DNxHD 4:4:2 or 4:4:4 (recommended).
When you have rendered you footage, re-import it. Your Cinelog-C encoded footage is Wide Gamut Cineon so you can then choose to add a Gamut Lut if you wish (i.e. add the sRGB gamut lut to transform from wide gamut to sRGB primaries, Rec709 = Rec709 primaries, Alexa Film Matrix = to Alexa Film Matrix RGB, Cinelog Prime Cine = Our Cine palette etc etc). The gamma will not change, only the color. You can then either add a 1D output lut (i.e. REC709, BT1886 etc) or one of the new PFE luts.
The guide is almost ready which makes it much clearer but after so much delay we wanted to get Cinelog-C out to current users before it's official release.
It's basically a recipe system where you can add different color transforms and output curves or print film emulation.
EDIT: The BMD Film 4K to Cinelog-C Input Lut has a color transform that gets you closer to the basic look of the Alexa so you only need add sRGB or Rec709 gamut + an output lut but if you want something more filmic like the Alexa Film Matrix + PFE just add the Alexa Film Matrix and a PFE. For something more exotic add the Prime Cine Gamut lut + a PFE ;)
The Type 2 input luts are photometric and don't have the Color transform of the main input lut so this is better for when you want to use Colormatch. Colormatch is best done in a node after adding the REC709 output lut. Choose REC709 colorspace in the Colormatch panel. Resolve 11's Cineon gamma target seems to be a little off from standard Cineon specs so don't target it.
The PFE luts are film gamma so will look a little dark. You can push up the shadows in a node before the PFE to rectify or add a Soft Curve lut.
BTW, you can use Alexa log-C luts from the ARRI Lut Generator too ;)
OK, will digest all this and play around...
For what it's worth, my workflow is a little bit different than what you described, using Resolve 11 and 7D.
I convert to DNG using raw2cdng
Then I am editing those natively in Resolve ;) Small project on very fast drive (2xSSD in Raid 0) so space and drive speed are not a problem...
So I guess for this, I only need the input lut (BMD Film 4k -> Cinelog-C) and then I can pick a PFE for output/monitoring?
Also, there is only an option for BMD Film 4K in the Gamma settings for Raw settings, not Color Space (which only has regular BMD Film)
There are no rules other than lut order.
A Gamut lut (if used) must come after the input lut and before an output or PFE lut.
If you want photometric Rec709 for instance you would choose:
BMD Film 4K to Cinelog-C Type 2 + REC 709 gamut lut + Rec709 output lut
This is essentially the same as using the REC709 monitor lut (3D) as an output lut but in keeping color and gamma separate we can transformed the color in linear gamma using a 65x65x65 cube lut and then transform gamma with a 1D curve (4096 code values) independently i.e. it's much smoother than using a 3D lut. The input luts are very high resolution, combined 1D/3D shaper luts.
BMD Film and BMD Film 4K are 'almost' identical colorspaces, close enough as to not worry about it (we noticed a small shift in red - darker on the 4K). The variance is caused by the difference in sensors that these profiles were designed for. We are piggy-backing on a raw profile that's not really intended for Canon DSLRs but it still produces good results with ML raw footage - we just try to make it even better ;).
OK... thanks :)
What do the abbreviations for the film stocks mean? (A vs. D65)
Also- any way to avoid the film stocks from being so dark other than pushing it back up after? Does anything get lost in that darkness?
Quote from: dmk on July 14, 2014, 10:44:05 PM
OK... thanks :)
What do the abbreviations for the film stocks mean? (A vs. D65)
Also- any way to avoid the film stocks from being so dark other than pushing it back up after? Does anything get lost in that darkness?
A = standard light A (~2850k) input
D65 = Daylight (~6500k) input
Choose whichever is closer to your footage color temp. [A] is truer to the original scanned film stocks (on the Arriscan) but we also transposed the scans to [D65] to add another 'artificial' option. If you choose [A] for daylight shots you'll get that tell-tale 'film look'. blue neutrals, deep greens and reds. We have some Powergrades coming to the Lut Bank that fully exploit what these can do and the results can be stunning.
The PFE luts are behaving as PFE luts are meant to behave (except our artificially transposed D65 versions). If you make your shadow, mids, highlights adjustments before the lut (i.e. grade under the lut) nothing will get lost. Try using the shadow recovery in the Colormatch panel (Resolve 11), add a little midtone detail (also in the Colormatch panel) and maybe a touch of Colorboost and you will get something pretty amazing, very quickly ;)
We will be releasing some custom curves for the PFE luts and the Powergrades will show better how to work with them.
Ah... another question- to compensate for the darkness, what do you think of boosting the exposure in the camera raw decoding settings?
Quote from: dmk on July 14, 2014, 11:35:17 PM
Ah... another question- to compensate for the darkness, what do you think of boosting the exposure in the camera raw decoding settings?
You can certainly push up the exposure but you might need to pull down the highlights a little. Watch out for haloing that can happen with extreme use of Resole 11 highlight/shadow recovery.
To confirm- working space is BMD film and Gamma is BMD Film 4K (for 7D)
Thanks for answering all these questions... hopefully they'll be helpful for other newbies too :)
@dmk - correct :)
This is an example of simply applying luts and making a few easy adjustments in Resolve to footage shot on a 50D (crop 1080x960):
the process:-
BMD Film 4K to Cinelog-C + sRGB Monitor Lut (set up for white balancing and exposure compensation)
(http://i.cubeupload.com/S85an3.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/S85an3.jpg)
Cinelog-C rendered as DNxHD 4:4:4 - this is what Cinelog-C looks like. Actually very close to Log-C ;)
(http://i.cubeupload.com/6MlM7C.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/6MlM7C.jpg)
Cinelog-C + Prime Cine RGB Lut + some Resolve 11 highlight/shadow recovery/midtone detail (10%), Colorboost (15%), Sharpen Y channel only to -48 + sRGB 1D Ouput lut
(http://i.cubeupload.com/TeA8oZ.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/TeA8oZ.jpg)
As above but added Fuji PFE [A] (on a layer node - not the usual method but works in this instance) + free 35mm Gorilla grain as a Matte (obviously this needs some secondary clean up to skin tones to correct for shadow noise)
(http://i.cubeupload.com/UxOBgU.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/UxOBgU.jpg)
No noise reduction used at all.
I should add that Cinelog-C is not officially released yet.
Wow, very helpful, thanks
What is the "Prime Cine RGB LUT"? and Where can I find it?. Looks good
OK, here's what I ended up doing last night... didn't actually need to touch any color wheels at all! Now I can reserve that for just matching the different clips and maybe a tiny bit more tweaking on a clip-by-clip basis, though even that isn't really needed I think and even that could be done mostly in raw interpretation :)
Andy- can you confirm that this is a good, non-destructive approach? Seems so strange to barely touch anything yet get such a nice old school cinematic looking grade (to my eye at least). My biggest question is if it made sense to arrange the LUTs like this and especially LUT 2
Step 1 - Apply BMD Film 4K -> Cinelog-C across entire project:
(http://i.cubeupload.com/SFoScw.png) (http://i.cubeupload.com/SFoScw.png)
Step 2 - For each clip:
A) make sure Color Space is BMD Film and Gamma is BMD Film 4K and Highlight Recovery is checked
B) Adjust tint, exposure, color boost to liking. Can come back to tweak these again later
(http://i.cubeupload.com/E44dfQ.png) (http://i.cubeupload.com/E44dfQ.png)
Step 3 - Add Node, set LUT to [GAMUT] Cinelog-C to Photometric Rec 709 Primaries
(http://i.cubeupload.com/pSFG8k.png) (http://i.cubeupload.com/pSFG8k.png)
Step 4 - Add Node, set LUT to [PE_A] Unversal HD
(http://i.cubeupload.com/s8f60L.png) (http://i.cubeupload.com/s8f60L.png)
Step 5 - Go back to Step 2.B and tweak a bit to liking, paying attention to scopes etc.
Step 6 - Render out (I'm on windows, so that's DNxHD 10 bit at Data levels). Result:
(http://i.cubeupload.com/FeL14x.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/FeL14x.jpg)
Edit: In case it makes a difference, shot on 7D and converted to DNG with Raw2CDNG at default (CDNG 16 bit). Brought straight into Resolve 11 for all-in-one workflow, no roundtripping anywhere (not even back into resolve).
@dmk - Yes, that'll work. Alternatively, if you are not rendering Cinelog-C intermediates first (i.e. just the log conversion) you can add the BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C lut on the first clip node or even on a track node. It will do the same thing.
We suggest the intermediate stage (raw to Cinelog-C DNxHD or ProRes 4:4:4 video) for those who want to free-up a lot of drive space because the log conversion can effectively be reversed to debayered linear raw RGB in .exr files (i.e. for VFX) using the Cinelog-C to Linear lut. This means you don't need to retain the original DNG images. Cinelog-C is useful for efficient archiving ;)
You can also set-up the render template to make Camera Raw default to BMD Film/BMD Film 4k colorspace with highlight recovery ticked so you only need adjust exposure, tint and temp for each clip. This saves a few key presses.
Resolve 11 also has a built-in legalizer (in the lut panel) 8). If you select broadcast legal to 0-100 and set output levels to AUTO it will output your deliverables with safe IRE levels (but only switch this on for final render if using it, not for rendering intermediate Cinelog-C video).
Setting video levels to AUTO is the best option as it chooses between video or data levels depending on the output codec selected, so if you choose DNxHD 4:4:4 for rendering intermediate video it will automatically output data level video (which is needed for log conversion). If you choose H264 for a deliverable format AUTO will choose video level output.
p.s. you can add some simple tags to keep images within the 900px width forum rule like this:
[url=http://i.cubeupload.com/6MlM7C.jpg][img width=900]http://i.cubeupload.com/6MlM7C.jpg[/img][/url]
Hello @Andy600
The results people are posting (especially skin-tones) look pretty persuasive. :)
Having read this thread I think I understand that your solution is optimised for Resolve.(?) My question is, as a Speedgrade user who currently uses ACR w/ VisionLog > ProRes 444 > Impulz Ultimate LUTs in SG:
a) How could I benefit from using CineLog?
b) Can I use any of your utility LUTs in Speedgrade?
Sorry if this has been covered, I may have missed something...
Many thanks
Tim
Quote from: Andy600 on July 15, 2014, 11:02:55 AM
We suggest the intermediate stage (raw to Cinelog-C DNxHD or ProRes 4:4:4 video) for those who want to free-up a lot of drive space because the log conversion can effectively be reversed to debayered linear raw RGB in .exr files (i.e. for VFX) using the Cinelog-C to Linear lut. This means you don't need to retain the original DNG images. Cinelog-C is useful for efficient archiving ;)
Totally, for a larger project that's critical and also I think if one wants to use ACR (i.e. via After Effects)
Though, I must say, as much of an Adobe fanboy as I am, it is *really nice* to be able to do the whole thing without leaving Resolve. That software is growing on me and I can't reason to do a short form project any other way
Thanks for confirming the above is all sane :) When you author the guide, for other people like me- might be helpful to know a little bit more about what the different GAMUT Luts are for. I just sortof randomly played till it looked good ;)
Quote from: Andy600 on July 15, 2014, 11:02:55 AM
p.s. you can add some simple tags to keep images within the 900px width forum rule like this:
[url=http://i.cubeupload.com/6MlM7C.jpg][img width=900]http://i.cubeupload.com/6MlM7C.jpg[/img][/url]
Done, thanks for the tip
Tim - See above: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10151.msg98416#msg98416
"The difference between Cinelog and Visionlog might not appear big at first glance but...."
@dmk - re: gamut luts - yes, we go into some detail :)
@timbytheriver - Thanks, part of our mission is to get skin tones into Alexa territory :)
You only need to use Resolve for the initial transcode of raw to Cinelog-C colorspace. This is because the source colorspace (BMD Film) is specific to Resolve (i.e. it's not just gamma/log related but actual color gamut) and our BMD Film to Cinelog-C input luts have both a color (3D) and a gamma (1D) component. Once you have rendered your footage to DNxHD or ProRes you can edit/color the log footage in any app. The other luts included are in IRIDAS .cube compatible format and will work fine in SG using Lumetri (although I don't have it here to test). We can provide other lut formats if required.
Quote from: dmk on July 15, 2014, 12:10:52 PM
Tim - See above: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10151.msg98416#msg98416
"The difference between Cinelog and Visionlog might not appear big at first glance but...."
That is more relevant to our ACR version (which will also target Cinelog-C soon - still working out the dreadful Adobe DCP HSV conversion >:( )
Re: VisionColor's new Impulz pack: I believe the Impulz luts can use Cineon for source and target gamma so they should work great with Cinelog-C (same log gamma). The difference is in what we do with color transforms before you apply your output curve or PFE or to simplify further - Impulz is about accurate photochemical color print film emulation and Cinelog-C is partly this plus some unique color manipulations.
@Andy600 Ah! Thanks. I think I see! :o So if I buy the ACR profile only it'll get me into Cinelog only. But if I buy the Resolve pack I can get it into Cinelog-C (near Alexa) via Resolve? Then grade in whatever when I render out ...
@dmk Thanks! I did miss something! :)
@timbytherive - Yes. The ACR version is not Cinelog-C (yet). We have still to work out a good DCP conversion to BMD colorspace (and then to Cinelog-C/Cineon) and embed this as a HSV table and tone curve in a camera specific DCP. This is really not an easy thing to do and we're still developing the backend conversion scripting. We have all the parts so it's just a matter of time.
Resolve 11 is IMO at the level of ACR now (in terms of debayer, highlight and shadow recovery, detail etc). I'm getting consistently good results with Cinelog-C in Resolve 11 and you'll see over the next few weeks what it can achieve. I'll also get hold of Impulz at some point and demo what can be done when the 2 packs are combined.
@Andy600 Thanks for the honest answers! :)
I ditched Resolve over a year ago because I have a modest specced machine, but I guess I need to take a look again if it's improved that much!
Thanks again.
I've been an Adobe user for years but apart from AE for VFX I rarely touch their software now. Resolve ticks all the boxes for me personally.
BTW, when we talk about Alexa color there is really only way to get it and that is to shoot on an Alexa. What we're trying to do is emulate some of the aesthetics of how the Alexa sees color, especially skin tones and color separation and apply this to raw footage from Canon DSLR's and other raw shooting cams. The Alexa also controls saturation in a clever way. It's relevant to ISO and exposure but you can emulate this part quite well in Resolve using the sat vs lum curve.
Hear you about the Alexa. When I said Alexa I meant [poor-man's] Alexa. ;)
Would it be cheeky for me to post a [troublesome] sample DNG file and ask you to see what can be achieved by the ACR Cinelog conversion alone?
Quote from: timbytheriver on July 15, 2014, 01:04:10 PM
Hear you about the Alexa. When I said Alexa I meant [poor-man's] Alexa. ;)
Would it be cheeky for me to post a [troublesome] sample DNG file and ask you to see what can be achieved by the ACR Cinelog conversion alone?
Poor-man's Alexa = anything shot on a camera other than the Arri Alexa :D
re: DNG - no problem. Can you email me a download link via the contact form (website link in my sig)
QuoteCan you email me a download link via the contact form
Have just done so. Thank you again.
Tim
Quote from: timbytheriver on July 15, 2014, 01:16:48 PM
Have just done so. Thank you again.
Tim
Whoa! that's trippy :D
I'll see what can be done and post it back to you.
I am very intrigued by this product, but I have skimmed this entire thread and unless I have missed something, I haven't seen a side-by-side comparison of how Cinelog differs from VisionLog. Even screen grabs of Resolve (with scopes) of VisionLog and then Cinelog applied to the same clip would be helpful. Even better: screen grabs of the same white-balanced clip with each LOG applied, and then with the same Alexa-emulating LUT applied. If this has been posted and I have missed it, please refer me to the URL.
@QuickHitRecord - You can't use the Cinelog-C luts with VisionLog because the source colorspace would be totally different but you can use VisionColor's Impulz luts (Cineon/Log input) with Cinelog-C. The source colorspace needs to be Cinelog-C for our gamut luts to work but Cinelog-C is Cineon log gamma too, so will work with any lut or profile that expects a true log/Cineon input. It's not just about the gamma or log curve, it's about RGB primaries, saturation, hue, luminance and a multitude of other things.
If you look at the BMD Film to VisionLog lut on scopes using either the SMPTE colorbars or a linear ramp there are big colorshifts and an uneven gamma curve. I presume this was done to counter something in the BMD film colorspace to get to the same look as their ACR version!? The BMD film gamma component is now known (there are luts for it) but we also have a model of the actual BMD colorspace and the colorshift does not actually happen, hence it does not need any correction unless you are targeting a bespoke colorspace, which VisionLog is. My guess is that the Visionlog lut is a Matchlight generated lut (a lut ripping app from LightIllusion) and there is no mathematical way to fully revert it without another Matchlight generated lut (and every one of these conversions degrades the signal a little). This is why we do the most important transform with math only and why Cinelog-C gamma conforms to measurable standards (i.e. it's the same industry standard Cineon formula found in OpenColorIO, CTL etc).
I'm not knocking VisionLog because a) it's free and b) you can likely get good results with some work or their other luts, but you have to understand it's limitations and drawbacks (i.e. invertibility, colorshifts and compatibility with standards). Cinelog-C on the other hand conforms to open standards for gamma transforms and only the color components are unique. I'll post some examples later :)
OK, I'm actually very confused... just to compare, I opened up one of my DNGs and it inherently looked much better than what I was getting for starters in resolve (both via Resolve's native CinemaDNG and using Cinelog)
Here is the ACR, set white balance to 6500 and tint = 0
(http://i.cubeupload.com/5zGNTr.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/5zGNTr.jpg)
Here is the Resolve, set white balance to 6500 and tint = 0 (and BMD Film 4K)
LUT #1 = [INPUT] BMD Film 4K -> Cinelog-C
LUT #2 = [MONITOR] Cinelog-C -> Rec 409
(http://i.cubeupload.com/kQGGRW.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/kQGGRW.jpg)
To my eye, it's not a matter of just bumping the exposure, when I do that the Resolve one doesn't look as good as the Adobe
So back at square 1, recut the film in Adobe? Aye... what's even the best process for that to utilize ACR, assuming disk space isn't an issue? Grade in After Effects with Synthetic Aperture?
EDIT: And just for fun, here's a DNG from around the same timestamp exported with same basic settings direct from Premiere... yet another difference!
(http://i.cubeupload.com/BWQSsV.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/BWQSsV.jpg)
@dmk - You need to adjust your WB in Resolve and not use a default settings because it's expecting footage shot on a Blackmagic Camera which have different XYZ matrices. It will not match ACR settings. Push up exposure in Resolve to around 0.75 or maybe a little more and add a little Y channel sharpening (i.e. add a node, set it to YUV colorspace, switching off channels 2 and 3 and then add some negative blur to around -0.47). You could also add a little midtone detail (in the Colormatch panel).
What profile/LUT combination did you use to get to that point in ACR?
Yeah, but it doesn't quite look as good when bumping the exposure...
Didn't use any profile or LUT in ACR
You won't get a perfect match with ACR this way (that's not what Cinelog-C is intended for) but this looks like a simple gamma/scaling issue and it's probably to do with the difference between video and data levels. Can you send me this image and I'll work out the best settings for you to get close in Resolve?
Default ACR output is a film curve with 2.2 gamma. Rec709 is a little different. Try this combination: BMD Film 4K to Cinelog-C + ProPhoto gamut lut + sRGB output lut (you will have to add some saturation). BTW, we have some luts coming to the Lut Bank that replicate Canon Picture Styles and ACR default output but using Resolve (these are for users who don't need/want to convert to log first).
Remember, ACR does not output a true Rec709 signal on it's own. It's a photo enhancement and usually looks wrong on a TV screen.
You are definitely using a profile in ACR. If you didn't select one it will use the default profile.
Re: the differences between Resolve and PP, AE, FCp etc etc - it's a nightmare familiar to colorists everywhere. That's why it's best to stick with known (SMPTE) standards. We can work out the scaling differences and make something to bridge different apps to fix gamma mismatch etc. It's like the gamma shift you get with H.264 - it's different across several apps because developers don't always stick to standards or they interpret them differently.
You might have to output at Video levels from Resolve or set you workspace to linear gamma (i.e. in After Effects) but it's wholly dependent on the app you are going to work in and the source signal/gamma. Don't fret, there is a solution for everything ;)
Cool, thanks for taking a look. Here's the file (maybe a frame or two off, but just about right):
http://we.tl/BLiNanPbhn
You are right, it was using the embedded profile... probably the technicolor one from when I was shooting h.264 ;)
For what it's worth, speedgrade 2014 rendered it almost totally black upon initial open, lol
So so far the only app that *really* gives me what I'd expect is After Effects, but then you can't grade the DNG directly (actually- what happens if you just adjust exposure and white balance in ACR that way, and then throw Synthetic Aperture/Color Finese on top... is that a high quality workflow, even if it means having to write down timecodes by hand to match an EDL? Last time I tried something like that was ages ago... and Color Finese didn't exactly reflect the ACR settings, had to toggle back and forth)
Gotta run, will be back later
Quote from: Andy600 on July 15, 2014, 05:16:47 PM
Re: the differences between Resolve and PP, AE, FCp etc etc - it's a nightmare familiar to colorists everywhere. That's why it's best to stick with known (SMPTE) standards. We can work out the scaling differences and make something to bridge different apps to fix gamma mismatch etc. It's like the gamma shift you get with H.264 - it's different across several apps because developers don't always stick to standards or they interpret them differently.
You might have to output at Video levels from Resolve or set you workspace to linear gamma (i.e. in After Effects) but it's wholly dependent on the app you are going to work in and the source signal/gamma. Don't fret, there is a solution for everything ;)
I think what might work really well is when you can get from ACR(DNG)->Resolve, and apply a LUT to see exactly what it looked like in ACR originally
The only piece that's missing for that is ACR->Cinelog-C right? Once you've got that, then it's in a standard that should look the same everywhere- and nothing really gets lost in the above workflow (assuming 10-bit intermediate)?
Quote from: dmk on July 15, 2014, 05:25:48 PM
Cool, thanks for taking a look. Here's the file (maybe a frame or two off, but just about right):
http://we.tl/BLiNanPbhn
You are right, it was using the embedded profile... probably the technicolor one from when I was shooting h.264 ;)
For what it's worth, speedgrade 2014 rendered it almost totally black upon initial open, lol
So so far the only app that *really* gives me what I'd expect is After Effects, but then you can't grade the DNG directly (actually- what happens if you just adjust exposure and white balance in ACR that way, and then throw Synthetic Aperture/Color Finese on top... is that a high quality workflow, even if it means having to write down timecodes by hand to match an EDL? Last time I tried something like that was ages ago... and Color Finese didn't exactly reflect the ACR settings, had to toggle back and forth)
Gotta run, will be back later
Technicolor Cinestyle isn't a DCP profile. They are different things. ACR will likely have defaulted to ACR 4.6 or later but it could also be set to default to something else (check the ACR profile slot where you would normally select VisionLog or Cinelog). ACR default is RIMM/ProPhoto RGB. We can match this exactly if needed :)
re: Speedgrade - Black = normal, it needs matrices and gamma settings added to work with DNG footage.
re: ACR, color finesses etc - It will work ok but will be a lot slower because you are having to debayer every frame (unless you have rendered to intermediate or proxy video first). Everything happens in floating point so you won't ruin your footage but remember to check if a lut clamps the output - if it does then you need grade under it (i.e. before the lut).
Cinelog-C, being Cineon gamma has measurable black and white points that will be accurate in Color Finesse, infact I'm going to look at it in a moment to see if the indicated levels/gamma shift is what I predicted. If so it's an easy fix with a couple of workspace settings.
Quote from: dmk on July 15, 2014, 05:32:45 PM
I think what might work really well is when you can get from ACR(DNG)->Resolve, and apply a LUT to see exactly what it looked like in ACR originally
The only piece that's missing for that is ACR->Cinelog-C right? Once you've got that, then it's in a standard that should look the same everywhere- and nothing really gets lost in the above workflow (assuming 10-bit intermediate)?
Yes, there will be an ACR version that matches Resolve (or as close as we can get within the confines of the Adobe DNG/DCP HSV profile architecture). We will also do something to match ACR output but this should only be seen as a 'look'.
I guess what's really throwing me off is the BMD Film setting making the CDNG so dark... needing to +1 the exposure just feels like too drastic an adjustment. Am I crazy? :)
Would it be better to use ACR and the current version of Cinelog to render out stills (or DNxHD... though there's issues from AE with that...), bring that into Resolve and just grade that by hand?
Quote from: dmk on July 15, 2014, 06:54:32 PM
I guess what's really throwing me off is the BMD Film setting making the CDNG so dark... needing to +1 the exposure just feels like too drastic an adjustment. Am I crazy? :)
Would it be better to use ACR and the current version of Cinelog to render out stills (or DNxHD... though there's issues from AE with that...), bring that into Resolve and just grade that by hand?
No, that's fairly typical (I think +0.74 exposure was the normalizing mid point offset for the 5D and other Canon cams are around the same). It won't hurt the footage. You're just increasing exposure relative to the BMD film profile. It's all happening in floating point and Cineon log has up to 13.5 F-stops compression in 10bits i.e. plenty of headroom.
I've just rendered your frame in Resolve and will have a look in AE now and get back to you.
here's a few example lut combinations + added a little midtone detail, sharpening and sat (maybe a little too much for some tastes) and subtle vignette. Nothing you can't achieve in 2 mins. I can save them as Resolve Powergrades if you like any of them or want to see the adjustments :)
Bottom row = Cinelog-C / Cinelog-C + sRGB Monitor Lut / Cinelog-C + Prime Cine RGB + Rec709 output lut
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogCLutexampleco.png) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogCLutexampleco.png)
Nice seeing what can be done so quickly. I think these looks lend themselves much more to the sortof action/thriller sort of genre, not so much an old world naturalist vibe... but very good to know that there's a very quick route to that commercially-successful sortof look using your LUTs. Kinda makes me want to shoot something in this genre just to show how easy it is to blow someone's socks off :)
Understood that it's not limited to that at all either.
Thanks for confirming it's not a big deal to bump up the exposure too, no doubt others might have wondered the same.
For right now, this project, I'm going to try going the AE route and see how it goes. This is such a small piece, and I might give FilmConvert a whirl too.
Thank you for all your help- even if I don't use it for this project, I'm happy with my purchase and looking forward to using it (and Resolve) in the future where it's a better fit (esp. where there's lots of media, intermediaries, deadlines, etc.) Rare that you get such dedicated feedback from the actual developer (for my dayjob- I'm coding mobile apps and web services and things like that, I have a huge appreciation for the technical R&D process and how it can be to need to explain it over and over again)!
Can't wait till the next project and to see all the improvements that have happened in between :)
Later!
LOL, well, nm... playing around in AE/FilmConvert didn't ultimately get me any better... seems the tools aren't the limitation :P
Now to reconstruct how in the hell I got to my most favorite setup in Resolve hehe.
Hope my notes help someone avoid making the same mistake I did... do not be fooled by the initial dark levels! As Andy said, there's more than enough there, and you gain nothing but heartache trying to go the AE route... :)
Once you match the default ACR output gamma it really shows the color separation :)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/ACRDefaultoutputgamm.png) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/ACRDefaultoutputgamm.png)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogCmatchACRDefa.png) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogCmatchACRDefa.png)
So I had some trouble in Resolve again... not due to Cinelog, just my own troubles getting it where I wanted, matching a reference I had previously. I'm sure I'll have more headache in AE, but going to start there and try again tomorrow.
Hehe... I've got to learn to let it go and move on to the next thing. I'm telling myself I'm not going to spend nearly as much time matching all the other clips as I did just to get this one the way I like.
But it's a good learning exercise anyway :)
Here's where I ended up, FYI (AE+ACR+FilmConvert... adjusted exposure in ACR and not much in FilmConvert.
EDIT: Hah, nevermind what was there before... had bad camera settings.... here's the latest:
(http://i.cubeupload.com/2QOksU.jpg) (http://i.cubeupload.com/2QOksU.jpg)
Quote from: Andy600 on July 15, 2014, 09:19:00 PM
Once you match the default ACR output gamma it really shows the color separation :)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/ACRDefaultoutputgamm.png) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/ACRDefaultoutputgamm.png)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogCmatchACRDefa.png) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogCmatchACRDefa.png)
Is her shirt a lil green in the resolve version?I do like the color seperation but seems like some excessive green in her face and shirt, or am I just tired. Looking forward to your comparison between visionlog and cinelog. Similar but VERY different at the same time, but hard to explain to someone who doesnt understand log images and manipulation. Loving the new C version, thx for being such a responsive dev
Quote from: Andy600 on July 14, 2014, 10:06:37 PM
The PFE luts are film gamma so will look a little dark. You can push up the shadows in a node before the PFE to rectify or add a Soft Curve lut.
BTW, you can use Alexa log-C luts from the ARRI Lut Generator too ;)
How would you describe the soft curve LUTs ? it it a simple soft contrast curve for when u want a light contrast curve but not the typical rec709 normalization? or does it have something to do with soft curving in a specific area, like highlights?
My new raw video graded in Resolve 10 with Cinelog 2.0
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12663.0
Nice marekk, cool (pun intended) way to draw attention to the blue theme throughout a city. I'm sortof more in the headspace right now of less heavy saturation (not that it's a bad thing in general at all- just where my personal taste is right now), but here it really worked well to make usual city shots stand out and say something interesting and different. Nicely done!
Loving the new package Andy! Getting some nice results with a quick workflow now.
One question I have, what is everyone using or what is the preferred method of noise reduction for this workflow? I'm used to using Neat Video plugin for FCP, but with these nice new PFE LUTs applied, I doubt the ISO profiles in Neat would work out (haven't tested yet, not home). I imagine this would only be for problem footage at 800ISO+ with the PFE grain distracting from much of the noise at lower ISO footage.
I'm thinking either;
export from Resolve before PFE and use Neat Video then roundtrip back to Resolve, apply a PFE -> Profit
or
run DNG files through ACR first to get rid of noise, regular edits in Resolve with a boost to midtone detail or --blur Y channel to sharpen.
Thanks
@dsManning - Noise reduction is best done before a PFE. PFE's can enhance noise so I would recommend rendering 4:4:4 Prores or DNxHD Cinelog-C and round-tripping before adding a gamut/PFE etc. Even better, get Neatvideo for OXF and you can do it all without leaving Resolve (denoise > Cinelog-C > PFE).
We also have an ACR version of Cinelog-C coming that uses ACR for the log transform and a lut for colorspace. It's producers a very close match to Resolve. You can even render to BMD Film colorspace (color and gamma) from ACR if you like the look of it but this will let ACR users use the same gamut, ouput and PFE luts that come with the Resolve version or let Resolve users make use of ACR which does have noise reduction :). We are also consolidating the ACR version to include all supported cameras in a single pack. This makes it simpler for us to maintain as there will be one pack for Resolve and one for ACR with only the main luts being different.
@Jbowdach - Soft curve 1 adds soft clipping to highlights and Soft Curve 2 adds soft clipping to highlights and shadows. They are both quite subtle. There will be some other 1D curves in the Lut Bank that will give stronger results but you will always get better results working with your own curve or Lift, gamma, gain controls on a node placed before the PFE or output lut.
Hi Andy,
I experimented a bit with new Cinelog-C package which I found quite amazing.
There is one point thought for which I need your explanations.
If I open the DNG directly in Rec709 (Color space and gamma) I get this look:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8741922/ACR.jpg)
If I use BMD Film 4K plus Cinelog-C and then output to Rec709 using the relevant INPUT, GAMUT and OUTPUT LUTs, I get this look:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8741922/Cinelog-C%20to%20Rec709.png)
Discarding the slight change in exposure, what I found "disturbing" is the color shift between the 2 versions.
Indeed, looking out by my window the "direct Rec709" version looks more realistic than the one using Cinelog-C.
Am I missing something here?
Thanks for your feedback!
PS : here is a single DNG frame if you want to check by yourself:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8741922/M15-1850_000000.dng
@morsafr - This is purely colorspace related. Try with BMD Film and Blackmagic's BMD Film to Rec709 lut - they don't look the same as the default Rec709 profile either, neither would Visionlog to Rec709 etc. BMD Film and Cinelog-C are wide gamut profiles and Cinelog-C has some unique colorspace changes. Cinelog-C is not intended to match the default Resolve Rec709 colorspace. We use standard gamma transfer functions (the same as you will find in OpenColorIO, CTL etc) to get to Cineon, Rec709, sRGb etc but color will be unique. We include the monitor luts purely as a viewing lut when white balancing your image but included the separate sRGB/Rec709 gamut and gamma luts to give you choices as each one can affect the look differently.
If you just want photometrically true color (or the color that chart manufacturers deem as true) then you need to use a chart and color match to it but that's not what Cinelog-C is really about plus even that will not match what you see in the default Rec709 gamma/colorspace.
We can provide you with luts if you want to keep the default Resolve Rec709 look but most users/colorists hate that and it will make most of the other luts we provide unusable.
BTW, you need to white balance your image through the monitor lut if you are using Cinelog-C and not just use a white balance default or the settings you used in the default rec709/rec709 profile ;)
Thanks Andy for your feedback.
Indeed my dream is not copying Rec709 :)
Cinelog-C is a great tool as it will allow us to save a considerable amount of space keeping only ProRes 4444 instead of cDNG. But before jumping into it, I'd like to be sure I can get realistic results if I want/need to.
So let me rephrase my point this way: let's say I'm shooting nature/landscapes and I want a realistic colors, what is the best way to proceed using Cinelog-C?
By the way I have a X-Rite Colorchecker that can work with the new Colormatch function in DR 11. If this is the solution for what I'm looking for, where in the workflow should I use it?
Thanks again for your precious advices!
PS: concerning white balance, I try to adjust it the best I can but as I'm using a Wide gamut display (useful for stills) so this is somewhat approximative...
@mosafar - Ok, that's easy. I will describe it using clip nodes to apply the luts :)
Shoot your chart, making sure it is evenly lit and not directly reflecting the light source. Try to set the white balance as accurately as you can.
Load your shot into resolve but DO NOT alter white balance at this stage. (Set it to custom but don't change anything yet).
In Resolve:
Set Resolve to BMD Film 4K gamma/BMD Film colorspace
add 3 nodes
add the BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C Type 2 lut to node 1
add the 1D Rec709 output lut to node 2
on node 3, select the Colormatch panel and set source AND target gamma and colorspace to Rec709. Line up your chart and hit the match button without altering the target temperature.
You should now have a pretty good chart match.
You can then remove node 2 (the one with the output lut) and add another 2 nodes after the colormatch node. On the last node, re-add the Rec709 output lut and on the node before it you can do your color grade, or just leave it as-is.
I've experimented a lot with the Colormatch tool. It's 'ok' but you really have to be careful with how you light and shoot the chart. If it's unevenly lit, even slightly, it will not work well.
You should, in theory, also be able to select Cineon as source gamma because Cinelog-C is Cineon gamma but it doesn't work atm in Colormatch. I'm not sure Cineon gamma (in Colormatch) is correct but we're looking into it (my guess is that it's the difference between 1.7 and 2.2 gamma).
Does your monitor let you select an output profile (Rec709, sRGB etc) or can it use luts? For video, you should really be monitoring in the colorspace you intend to output to and your monitor should be calibrated as well as possible.
.. I know I talking about two different products but.. what is the best way to go from Cinelog-C to Osiris LUTs ?
Quote from: marekk on July 19, 2014, 05:29:11 PM
.. I know I talking about two different products but.. what is the best way to go from Cinelog-C to Osiris LUTs ?
TBH this is a minefield. It all depends on what source gamma and colorspace those luts were designed for and their interpretation of it.
I don't have the Osiris pack but I see it comes with log and Rec709 flavors. I presume this is input gamma!?. If the log versions expect a Cineon log input you should be able to use those but it might expect VisionLog input. You may be better off getting Cinelog-C into Rec709 gamma using the Rec709 output lut and use the Rec709 Osiris luts. Results will also depend on the input colorspace so you may also need to add the Rec709 or sRGB gamut lut before the Rec709 output lut but you might also get some nice/unexpected results using Prime RGB or Prime Cine RGB.
I will have a proper look at their luts soon and make some Cinelog-C conversion luts if necessary. I would do it now but I'm tied up with getting the new website ready for the Cinelog-C release.
QuoteWe also have an ACR version of Cinelog-C coming that uses ACR for the log transform and a lut for colorspace.
@Andy600 I am very excited about this! :)
Quote from: timbytheriver on July 19, 2014, 06:28:24 PM
@Andy600 I am very excited about this! :)
Just got a little more testing to do then I'll send you the Cinelog-C ACR pack :)
Quote from: Andy600 on July 19, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
@mosafar - Ok, that's easy. I will describe it using clip nodes to apply the luts :)
...
Thank you so much Andy, the result is impressive, very realistic colors + the benefits of Cinelog-C :)
Just one complementary question: what to change in the workflow if I want a sRGB output gamma instead of REC709?
Quote from: Andy600 on July 19, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
Does your monitor let you select an output profile (Rec709, sRGB etc) or can it use luts? For video, you should really be monitoring in the colorspace you intend to output to and your monitor should be calibrated as well as possible....
I have several preset modes on my DELL U2711. I'm using the preset mode called "Custom color" to calibrate the monitor to its native gamut (perfect for photography).
I also noticed a preset mode called "sRGB". Should I switched to it, create a new ICC profile with my i1 Display Pro and use this combination as my starting point for Resolve (and switching back to the other preset mode/ICC profile for Lightroom)?
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer all our questions!
Quote from: morsafr on July 19, 2014, 07:55:18 PM
Thank you so much Andy, the result is impressive, very realistic colors + the benefits of Cinelog-C :)
Just one complementary question: what to change in the workflow if I want a sRGB output gamma instead of REC709?
I have several preset modes on my DELL U2711. I'm using the preset mode called "Custom color" to calibrate the monitor to its native gamut (perfect for photography).
I also noticed a preset mode called "sRGB". Should I switched to it, create a new ICC profile with my i1 Display Pro and use this combination as my starting point for Resolve (and switching back to the other preset mode/ICC profile for Lightroom)?
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer all our questions!
You're welcome :)
For colormatching to sRGB just repeat the process but swap the output lut to sRGB and select sRGB as source and target gamma. There is no sRGB colorspace target in Resolve as it's essentially the same as Rec709. Only the gamma changes but the gamma change affects the appearance of color (i.e in this case it gets lighter). The Cinelog-C Rec709 and sRGB 3D gamut luts should be used with their Rec709 and sRGB 1D output lut counterparts but we kept them separate so you can mix 'n' match if you so choose. Mixing will not be totally accurate but, for instance, adding the rec709 gamut lut to a BT.1886 output lut can produce deeper color than you would usually see with sRGB. You don't necessarily need to add a gamut lut for technical reasons or even use them at all. They can also be used to saturate/desaturate an image or let you increase relative color saturation to greater extremes.
re: your monitor. You should be able to create a Rec709 or sRGB profile with your i1 and leave the monitor in wide gamut!? This should be better than the sRGB preset (they are usually quite bad) but I don't know the actual monitor so I can't say for sure.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 19, 2014, 05:43:36 PM
TBH this is a minefield. It all depends on what source gamma and colorspace those luts were designed for and their interpretation of it.
I don't have the Osiris pack but I see it comes with log and Rec709 flavors. I presume this is input gamma!?. If the log versions expect a Cineon log input you should be able to use those but it might expect VisionLog input. You may be better off getting Cinelog-C into Rec709 gamma using the Rec709 output lut and use the Rec709 Osiris luts. Results will also depend on the input colorspace so you may also need to add the Rec709 or sRGB gamut lut before the Rec709 output lut but you might also get some nice/unexpected results using Prime RGB or Prime Cine RGB.
I will have a proper look at their luts soon and make some Cinelog-C conversion luts if necessary. I would do it now but I'm tied up with getting the new website ready for the Cinelog-C release.
There is a special lut for Cinelog 2.0 to convert footage to Alexa Log C. Is it possible to create conversion lut for Cinelog-C (>Alexa Log C)?
Quote from: marekk on July 19, 2014, 08:42:09 PM
There is a special lut for Cinelog 2.0 to convert footage to Alexa Log C. Is it possible to create conversion lut for Cinelog-C (>Alexa Log C)?
The Log-C formula is really only useful for the Alexa and it's 15+ F-stops of DR. Log-C is actually based on Cineon but converting to Log-C will be wasting a lot of space. The only real difference between Cinelog-C gamma and Log-C is in the scaling. Cinelog-C is scaled to work better on lower DR cameras (up to 13.5 f-stops) but has the same black and white points. You can even use normalized Alexa Log-C luts if you like ;).
Basically, you already have it with Cinelog-C + some 'Alexa'esque' color tone and color separation! :)
Quote from: Andy600 on July 19, 2014, 09:07:03 PM
The Log-C formula is really only useful for the Alexa and it's 15+ F-stops of DR. Log-C is actually based on Cineon but converting to Log-C will be wasting a lot of space. The only real difference between Cinelog-C gamma and Log-C is in the scaling. Cinelog-C is scaled to work better on lower DR cameras (up to 13.5 f-stops) but has the same black and white points. You can even use normalized Alexa Log-C luts if you like ;).
Basically, you already have it with Cinelog-C + some 'Alexa'esque' color tone and color separation! :)
Thx Andy :) I'm not a color grading expert ;) I would like to simply add some color effects to my footage ;) I'm trying to figure out how to achieve the same look with Cinelog-C as with Cinelog 2.0 -> Arri Log C -> Rec709 -> OSIRIS Luts
Quote from: marekk on July 19, 2014, 09:15:18 PM
Thx Andy :) I'm not a color grading expert ;) I would like to simply add some color effects to my footage ;) I'm trying to figure out how to achieve the same look with Cinelog-C as with Cinelog 2.0 -> Arri Log C -> Rec709 -> OSIRIS Luts
Ok, try BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C + sRGB gamut lut + Rec709 or sRGB 1D output lut (this will give you color and gamma close to the previous version but you will probably need to increase exposure in the camera raw panel to about 0.75) then try adding an Osiris Rec709 Lut.
Then try swapping the gamut lut ;) Prime Cine RGB might give you some nice results. Reduce or increase colorboost and/or saturation to your own taste.
@Andy600
I am trying to nail down a workflow. I'm looking to use Resolve 11 to export LOG clips that are as close to Alexa in-camera LOG as possible, then edit, then re-import into Resolve and apply FilmConvert and make secondary adjustments. How does this look to you?
1) Configure Project Settings: Camera Raw (CinemaDNG/Decode Using Project/ColorSpace: BMD Film/White Balance if same lighting conditions for entire project)
2) Configure Project Settings: Look Up Tables (3D Input Lookup Table: Cinelog-C)
3) Apply NeatVideo to first node in each clip
4) Export all clips (ProRes HQ)
5) Edit
6) Import timeline into Resolve
7) Apply FilmConvert (Source Camera: Alexa Log-C Film)
8 ) Adjust secondaries
9) Export
@QuickHitRecord
Ok, a couple of things I would suggest.
1) Select BMD Film 4k gamma/BMD Film colorspace for ML footage (you may already do this but just to be sure :) ). Also, add the Rec709 or sRGB monitor lut in the Monitor Lut slot of the Lut Panel. It makes it easier to white balance. This lut does not get rendered.
2) Use the BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C input lut (it will add a bit more color separation and creamier skintones than the Type2 version)
3) Yes (I also switch on Node Cache if I'm using NeatVideo)
4) Yes, although 4:4:4 is a better option if you can afford the disk space
5) Yes, you can add a monitor lut again when editing in another NLE if you don't want to look at a log image.
6) Yes
7) If you are choosing Alexa Log-C Film as the input profile for FilmConvert you should add the Alexa Film Matrix gamut lut on a node before FilmConvert (The Film Matrix will add saturation back to the image and is basically the same as you would do with the Alexa). Adjust the FilmConvert curve and film color to taste.
8) Yes - I usually use a layer node to qualify the skin tones then apply the inverse selection to the second layer and mix using key level. You can also use outside nodes to do this.
9) Yes
Resolve 11 Tip: Play with the new midtone detail (in the Colormatch panel) on the same node where you have added FilmConvert. It can make the image a touch more filmic.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 19, 2014, 03:31:35 PM
@mosafar - Ok, that's easy. I will describe it using clip nodes to apply the luts :)
Shoot your chart, making sure it is evenly lit and not directly reflecting the light source. Try to set the white balance as accurately as you can.
Load your shot into resolve but DO NOT alter white balance at this stage. (Set it to custom but don't change anything yet).
...
Hi again Andy,
I forgot to ask you about something: if I need to adjust white balance within the Colormatch workflow, when can I do it?
More generally, If I want to change the Camera RAW settings, what is the best way to do it?
Thanks again!
QuoteJust got a little more testing to do then I'll send you the Cinelog-C ACR pack :)
*Waits by Postbox patiently* :P
Andy, thanks for answering my questions.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 20, 2014, 05:10:21 AM7) If you are choosing Alexa Log-C Film as the input profile for FilmConvert you should add the Alexa Film Matrix gamut lut on a node before FilmConvert (The Film Matrix will add saturation back to the image and is basically the same as you would do with the Alexa).
Which one is this? I assume it's included in the Cinelog-C package? If so, what is the specific name of the LUT as it appears in the Resolve menu?
Quote from: QuickHitRecord on July 20, 2014, 03:33:03 PM
Andy, thanks for answering my questions.
Which one is this? I assume it's included in the Cinelog-C package? If so, what is the specific name of the LUT as it appears in the Resolve menu?
It's called [GAMUT]_Alexa_Film_Matrix.cube and it's in the _Cinelog-C_[GAMUT] folder :)
Quote from: Andy600 on July 20, 2014, 03:55:03 PM
It's called [GAMUT]_Alexa_Film_Matrix.cube and it's in the _Cinelog-C_[GAMUT] folder :)
It looks like I only have two files in that folder:
[GAMUT]_Cinelog-C_TYPE1_to_Photometric_REC709_Primaries.cube
[GAMUT]_Cinelog-C_TYPE2_to_Photometric_REC709_Primaries.cube
Quote from: morsafr on July 19, 2014, 07:55:18 PM
Thank you so much Andy, the result is impressive, very realistic colors + the benefits of Cinelog-C :)
Just one complementary question: what to change in the workflow if I want a sRGB output gamma instead of REC709?
For stills? Perhaps do the gamma tweak in an output node or outside of Resolve? Video would not be output with sRGB gamma.
QuoteI have several preset modes on my DELL U2711. I'm using the preset mode called "Custom color" to calibrate the monitor to its native gamut (perfect for photography).
Whilst 'Custom Color' would put your monitor into it's native 'wider' gamut, the bottom line is the purpose of that is to make the monitor more likely, more receptive to achieve 100% 709 coverage in the calibration and profiling process, absolutely no point of the wider gamut if it falls short of any other video or cinema standard, you need to reign it in to 709, produce a monitor / viewer 3D LUT for Resolve from your profiling /LUT creation software.
Resolve doesn't use ICC profiles, if you allow your OS to load an ICC profile at boot or login which will only adjust gamma with a 1D LUT anyway (ICC Color Management within the applications handles the rest) your Resolve session won't be colour managed for your display, if you choose to use a 3D LUT for monitoring in Resolve you really don't want the ICC profile getting in the way adjusting gamma because the monitor 3D LUT may well adjust gamma again and lead to unwanted issues with banding and jacked up black levels.
If you can't prevent the ICC loading at boot or log on, i.e: If you're on a Mac then you would need to feed a monitor directly from a BM UltraStudio Mini Monitor by passing the graphics card output. Even on Windows or Linux a BM Mini Monitor is preferred. At worst if you can't prevent ICC profile affecting output you would need to profile your monitor via a patch generator inside Resolve either by Calman, Lightspace or DispcalGUI, so that the ICC profile gamma mucking around is accounted for in your 3D LUT for monitoring in Resolve.
QuoteI also noticed a preset mode called "sRGB". Should I switched to it, create a new ICC profile with my i1 Display Pro and use this combination as my starting point for Resolve (and switching back to the other preset mode/ICC profile for Lightroom)?
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer all our questions!
Monitor presets are worthless unless you are regularly sending the monitor back for recalibration because monitors drift and change over time. Surprised if they're even accurate enough from the factory. Preferably it's best to calibrate the monitor using whatever preset make the display most receptive to achieving 709 and that would probably be 'Custom Color' plus whatever tweaks the monitor will allow with RGB gain and offset, Backlight, Contrast & Brightness. Then profile it with the i1DisplayPro.
But this only gets you close to 709 gamut, part of the goal, also RGB separation or more importantly the minimum of RGB separation along the display curve, screen uniformity in terms of grayscale, native 1080p resolution without scaling and monitor refresh rates (24, 25, 30, 50i & 60i) play a part for video that is. If your monitor only does 60Hz, duplicate frames are added and frames dropping is going to happen for all frames rates other than 30 & 60fps, messing with those smooth pans and motion in general.
Not directly related as you're using Lightroom and photography too for others it's worth considering that it can be a waste of cash to buy expensive 'wild' gamut 60Hz monitors thinking everything is wonderful and calibrated, better to buy a couple of budget monitors for GUI, a BM Mini Monitor and a decent 32"+ LED TV (refresh rates, native resolution) to go with the i1DisplayPro, then at a later date invest in a better 32"+ display depending on finances. The mini monitor is also supported in major NLE's etc so it's no specific to Resolve.
Quote from: QuickHitRecord on July 20, 2014, 04:01:10 PM
It looks like I only have two files in that folder:
[GAMUT]_Cinelog-C_TYPE1_to_Photometric_REC709_Primaries.cube
[GAMUT]_Cinelog-C_TYPE2_to_Photometric_REC709_Primaries.cube
It sounds like you're on a Mac? Copying the updated luts may have deleted the other folder contents. Just copy the original pack back to the Resolve LUT folder. You may need to re-copy the updated luts manually.
@dyfid - you make some very valid points. A lut box is worth the investment if your monitor cannot load luts.
I should point out that the Cinelog-C monitor luts are simply a Cinelog-C to Rec709 or sRGB gamma transfer function with primaries transform from wide gamut to sRGB colorspace. You need to calibrate your monitor for accurate color reproduction and always use scopes to double check levels/saturation etc. If you use the monitor lut slot (in the Resolve Lut panel) for an actual monitor profile lut you can use the Cinelog-C monitor lut on a node (i.e. a track node which affects everything), and just remove/disable it before rendering.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 20, 2014, 04:24:08 PM
@dyfid - you make some very valid points. A lut box is worth the investment if your monitor cannot load luts.
Only if bypassing the OS level ICC profiles and colour management via something like a Mini Monitor or preventing the ICC loading in the first place if using the graphics card output otherwise the LUT box will probably not be getting a 'clean' signal.
LUT Boxes are £300, rather invest that in the 32"+ screen, use a BM Mini Monitor and monitor LUT in Resolve to a dedicated 32" and use the GUI monitors for apps like Lightroom where sRGB would be the target. Can see the benefit in LUT Box if jumping between display targets.
hello andy,
i am really interested in your luts and own a canon 5d mk3, i have began to read through this thread but it is really long and it seems that things slightly change with more experience and time and new tools.. i am interested in the up to date workflow and would really like to read your manual before i buy the stuff.. is it available anywhere?
and andy, can we have a sneak look to the new homepage..? should be finished soon, no?
thx
Quote from: Andy600 on July 20, 2014, 05:10:21 AM
If you are choosing Alexa Log-C Film as the input profile for FilmConvert you should add the Alexa Film Matrix gamut lut on a node before FilmConvert (The Film Matrix will add saturation back to the image and is basically the same as you would do with the Alexa).
Using the Alexa Film Matrix before FilmConvert is giving me a very yellowish cast. I'm finding that it looks much better without it.
So far, the best-looking results I have found are from BMD Film (4K) > Cinelog-C > Alexa Log-C to Rec.709 LUT > FilmConvert.
What would be the best way to make a Color Match (color chart) adjustment in Resolve 11 if I'm using BMD Film 4K Color Space / 3D LUT Input: BMD Film to Cinelog-C / Output Alex Log-C to Rec. 709? And while I am asking, are the Input/Output LUTS "overriding" the nodes, or do the nodes take effect in between LUT applications?
In the weeks that I spent contemplating whether or not to buy Cinelog, I kept hoping that someone would post a side-by-side comparison with VisionColor's free VisionLog. Now that I have purchased it, here is that comparison.
No adjustments have been made, except for using an X-Rite Color Checker with the Color Match tool in the first node, and a project-wide gamma boost of 1 (footage was a little underexposed to start with). Each LUT was applied in a subsequent node:
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/Rec709_zps430610f8.png)
Rec709
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/VisionLOG_zps62cdc766.png)
BMDFilm 4K (no highlight recovery) > BMDFilm to VisionColor LUT
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/Cinelog-C_zpsdbddf4f7.png)
BMDFilm 4K (no highlight recovery) > BMDFilm 4K to Cinelog-C
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/VisionLOG_amp_VisionLOG_to_Rec709_zpsb29926cb.png)
BMDFilm 4K (no highlight recovery) > BMDFilm to VisionColor LUT > VisionColor LUT to Rec709
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/Cinelog-C_amp_Alexa_Log-C_to_Rec709_zps68d9a3ff.png)
BMDFilm 4K (no highlight recovery) > BMDFilm 4K to Cinelog-C > Alexa Log-C to Rec709
Quote from: QuickHitRecord on July 25, 2014, 07:52:52 PM
What would be the best way to make a Color Match (color chart) adjustment in Resolve 11 if I'm using BMD Film 4K Color Space / 3D LUT Input: BMD Film to Cinelog-C / Output Alex Log-C to Rec. 709? And while I am asking, are the Input/Output LUTS "overriding" the nodes, or do the nodes take effect in between LUT applications?
Hi QuickHitRecord,
Is this the Alexa log-C to Rec709 lut that comes with Resolve?
The Alexa Log-C to Rec709 lut will work in so far as a gamma transfer (and it looks like a nice fit) but it is for a different colorspace and has some tonemapping specific to Alexa wide gamut RGB. This results in a colorshift and over saturation if you use it with Cinelog-C (a different colorspace) and it is why the neutrals chips have a tint and color saturation extends well below luminance values (this should be quite noticeable on the Resolve Vectorscope).
If you like the gamma curve you can apply a 1D version of the Alexa lut (gamma only) and either add your own saturation and/or Colorboost or one of the gamut luts in the Cinelog-C pack, in this instance the Rec709 or sRGB gamut lut. Incidentally, Colorboost is just Resolve's name for 'Vibrance'.
As you might not know how to convert the Alexa lut to a 1D lut I have done it for you and uploaded it here: http://we.tl/yMkFskLsgD (http://we.tl/yMkFskLsgD)
Regarding your Colormatch question. You should be able to find the answer a few posts back. Basically, Add 3 nodes in Resolve, apply the Cinelog-C input lut (type2) on node 1 and the Cinelog Rec709 1D Output lut on node 2, then use Colormatch to target Rec709 gamma and colorspace on node 3. You can then remove the Rec709 output lut node (2) and add another node after the Colormatch node and add this new Alexa 1D lut to that :) note: Your grading is best done before the Alexa Rec709 lut as it clamps output levels.
Regarding Rec709 curves. This might give you more of an insight into the differences between various luts (signal traces of the gamma transfers in 1D):
Alexa Log-C to Rec709 (as comes with DaVinci Resolve)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/AlexaRec709.jpg) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/AlexaRec709.jpg)
Cinelog-C to REC709 1D output lut (not including log transform)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogtoREC709.jpg) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogtoREC709.jpg)
Cinelog-C to REC709 1D output lut (including Cinelog-C log transform) - This is the gamma response Resolve expects to see as Rec709 source gamma in Colormatch
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogtoREC709outpu.jpg) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/CinelogtoREC709outpu.jpg)
BMD Film to VisionLOG-RAW (not including Visionlog transform)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/BMDFilmtoVisionLOGRA.jpg) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/BMDFilmtoVisionLOGRA.jpg)
BMD Film to VisionLOG-RAW to Visionlog REC709 Neutral (including Visionlog log transform)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/BMDFilmtoVisionlogto.jpg) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/BMDFilmtoVisionlogto.jpg)
VisionLog to REC709 (not including Visionlog Log transform)
(http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/VisionLogtoRec709gam.jpg) (http://u.cubeupload.com/Andy600/VisionLogtoRec709gam.jpg)
Hi Andy thanks for your explanations.
I tried the Alexa Log-C to Rec709 LUT and I like the results (first graph). Indeed the highlights are much less clipped and the shadows are more opened than when I use the simple Cinelog-C to REC709 output LUT (second graph).
I'm wondering how to achieve the third graph. Which LUT should I use to achieve "Cinelog-C log transform"?
Sorry for all these questions but these LUTs are quite new to me!
Thanks again.
Quote from: morsafr on July 26, 2014, 04:39:22 PM
Hi Andy thanks for your explanations.
I tried the Alexa Log-C to Rec709 LUT and I like the results (first graph). Indeed the highlights are much less clipped and the shadows are more opened than when I use the simple Cinelog-C to REC709 output LUT (second graph).
I'm wondering how to achieve the third graph. Which LUT should I use to achieve "Cinelog-C log transform"?
Sorry for all these questions but these LUTs are quite new to me!
Thanks again.
You're welcome :)
The 1D version of the Alexa lut works well with Cinelog-C (as it should).
The 3rd graph is what you get when you combine the BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C Input lut + Cinelog-C to Rec709 1D output lut. It's the same as Cineon log but remember you are only looking at the 1D gamma trace here and there is a big 3D color component in the input lut that is not shown in the graph (the 3D part is basically the Cinelog-C colorspace). When I get some time I will render some 3D pointcloud diagrams of the colorspace.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 26, 2014, 12:34:21 AM
Is this the Alexa log-C to Rec709 lut that comes with Resolve?
Yes, this is the Alexa Log-C that comes with Resolve 11.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 26, 2014, 12:34:21 AM
...and the Cinelog Rec709 1D Output lut on node 2
Sorry, but do you mean
[OUTPUT 1D] Cinelog-C to Rec.709 1.95 Gamma? I am getting weird results with the workflow that you had suggested above (major blue cast when I delete the second node).
Yes, the [OUTPUT 1D] Cinelog-C to Rec.709 1.95 Gamma lut. It sounds like you may be altering the target color temperature? If so, leave it (and the whitepoint value) at the default settings i.e. only change the source and target gamma/colorspace to Rec709.
Edit: Also, white balance your image as best you can before using Colormatch.
Here are the three nodes with the LUTS that you had specified (this is with a project setting of BMD Film 4K color space). You can see my target settings in the first grab:
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/ScreenShot2014-07-26at123022PM_zpsc67d64ea.png)
And then here's what happens when I disable [OUTPUT 1D] Cinelog-C to Rec.709 1.95 Gamma in the second node:
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/ScreenShot2014-07-26at123029PM_zps4103af2e.png)
Adding the Alexa Log-C 1D LUT after this just makes the blue look deeper.
What am I missing?
Ok, this is where Colormatch isn't very useful but you can try this:
Select the Cineon to Linear Lut (found in Resolve's VFX folder) then choose linear as the source and target gamma (rec709 colorspace) on the colormatch node. Then remove the Cineon to linear node and add the Alexa 1D lut after the colormatch lut.
Colormatch is by no means perfect and this is pretty typical of the issues people are seeing. It's not Cinelog related because it happens even with Resolve's built in luts.
BTW, what are your white balance settings and was this shot under florescent or LED lighting? These light sources can cause big problems for Colormatch.
You could also try using the Alexa lut for Colormatch instead of the output lut but you might get some non-linear gamma shift that clips the output. This is also a problem with colormatching in Cineon logspace.
If you are getting good results with the Rec709 output lut in-place, why not leave it and grade under it? (i.e. on new nodes before the Rec709 output lut)
Also, you have to make sure that the chart is evenly and well lit, without any shadows or obstructions (i.e. no fingers over the black patch).
The middle grey patch (bottom row, third square from the right) should be exposed so it sits at about 410 - 420 on the waveform monitor. There is a good explanation of this here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/post/resolve-10-waveform-values-for-the-unsure.html (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/post/resolve-10-waveform-values-for-the-unsure.html)
Quote from: Andy600 on July 26, 2014, 04:56:29 PM
You're welcome :)
The 1D version of the Alexa lut works well with Cinelog-C (as it should).
The 3rd graph is what you get when you combine the BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C Input lut + Cinelog-C to Rec709 1D output lut. It's the same as Cineon log but remember you are only looking at the 1D gamma trace here and there is a big 3D color component in the input lut that is not shown in the graph (the 3D part is basically the Cinelog-C colorspace). When I get some time I will render some 3D pointcloud diagrams of the colorspace.
In this case I don't understand what the first graph represents. :(
What I'm seeing is that "[OUTPUT_1D]_Cinelog-C_to_REC709_1.95_Gamma.cube" is producing a much contrasty look compared to "Arri Alexa LogC to Rec709 1D.cube". Is it logical according to your graphs?
Maybe I don't interpret the graphs right! :o
Quote from: morsafr on July 26, 2014, 07:26:00 PM
In this case I don't understand what the first graph represents. :(
What I'm seeing is that "[OUTPUT_1D]_Cinelog-C_to_REC709_1.95_Gamma.cube" is producing a much contrasty look compared to "Arri Alexa LogC to Rec709 1D.cube". Is it logical according to your graphs?
Maybe I don't interpret the graphs right! :o
Ok, the 1D output luts basically transform Cineon log gamma (which is the gamma curve of Cinelog-C) to whatever the target gamma of your output device is (i.e. Rec709, sRGB, BT1886 etc). These luts are not intended to be applied as a 'look' because, as you say, they can appear too contrasty, especially with high dynamic range images and they only alter the gamma of the image. In normal colorgrading you would grade under the lut (i.e. the rec709 output lut is on the last node - though this is not a rule). You would add a node before the output lut and add your own curves, lift/gamma/gain adjustments to adjust the shadows, mids and highlights to your own taste, plus any color adjustments you want to do.
The output luts basically emulate the gamma of an output device such as a computer monitor (sRGB) or HDTV (Rec709). Most colorists tend to use BT1886 as it is less contrasty by default meaning you pull down the shadows towards black rather than push them up. If you do these corrections before the lut you will be working with the full data range. The output lut clamps the output bounds to a 0.0 - 1.0 data range. If you are doing broadcast work you can also switch on the legalizer in Resolve 11 to make sure your final output stays within legal broadcast levels (saturation and luminance).
The luts that come with Cinelog-C are really a toolkit for working with raw/log footage but we are making some nice Powergrades (advanced 'look's) for the new website that will show you how to make the best of the luts. They will also help you understand the purpose of each lut and how and when to use them. Powergrades are much more than a one-click 'look' lut and we will show you why this is too.
Thanks a lot Andy!
Looking forward for your next updates (powergrades...)
@Andy600 I am following your suggestions closely and still getting weird color casts resulting in unusable footage (color chart was evenly lit with a single bounced tungsten source; I did color match when the chart was not obscured at all). I am not sure where the disconnect is.
Based on your suggestions, I've tried a few different applications of the Cinelog-C LUT. These are some of the better ones, but they are still shots in the dark (make sure to move the cursor from the video pane so that the playhead disappears and you can read my notes):
Of course, I'll be exporting before the final node with the finishing LUT is applied. I've left them enabled for reference.
I am just trying to find a good, latitude-friendly starting point to which I can export. Let me know if you think I'm close with any of these.
EDIT: I always assumed that the color checker was automatically performing a white balance. Perhaps that is where the disconnect has been. I changed my project settings to reflect a proper white balance from the get-go, and then color matched again. I have replaced the original file with the new one.
@QuickHitRecord
Hi,
The first thing I noticed is that your white balance is incorrect in the first shot (original Rec709) because the neutral patches have a greenish colorcast (I'm judging by eye on a laptop but I'll check on the scopes later). Colormatch always works best when you have neutral white balance to start with as Resolve doesn't need to do so much color shift. Try isolating the white chip using a power window and offset the tint until it centers on the vectorscope then adjust the color temp until it looks how you want it to (warm, cool etc).
So, in the order of the tests (I'll call them V1, V2 etc)
V1 - see above
V2 - colorcast is still evident even after colormatching - see above
V3 - better. No color cast but skin tones are getting a bit magenta
V4 - about the same as V3 but gamma difference is causing desaturation
V5 - bad color - incorrect use of Colormatch (should only be Colormatched after the input lut)
V6 - Slight colorcast - correct the WB and try again
I will send you a 1D only input lut to try (by PM). This will not introduce any color shifts so it will work better with Colormatch but will affect how our other luts look.
Although Colormatch can be used with Cinelog-C it (Cinelog-C) it really only needs footage to be white balanced because the color component (3D part) has some very specific color shifts that enhance color separation and skin tones. Colormatch will simply negate these changes (or try to). It's a bit like trying to Colormatch using a PFE. It will destroy the characteristics that make the PFE unique. If you simply want color chart matching, the 1D Input lut I'm sending will produce the most neutral result but it's not Cinelog-C.
To use: set Resolve to BMD Film 4k and add > new BMD Film 4k to Cineon 1D input lut > 1D Rec709 output lut > Colormatch. You can then substitute the output lut for the Alexa 1D lut if you wish.
Hi Andy,
Could you also send me this new LUT?
I'd like to experiment with it as Colormatch is important in some of my videos (nature).
Thanks!
"More detailed information will be in the full updated user guide."
Hello Andy, has the new user guide been released yet? I have been following this post and trying to pick out some of the useful tips you have been giving to the users of the new Cinelog-C but I think I would benefit more if I had a the user guide. Just wondering,thank you sir again for all your hard work and customer service sir.
I gotta say that this is borderline ridiculous. Over a month and here we are still waiting. Don't write cheques you can't cash man.
If you get sick of waiting you could develop it yourself?
Just downloaded this yesterday and am pretty happy with the results. We have sent clips to our colorist for final approval but it looks good to me. We are shooting a year long documentary starting next month and needed exactly this kind of tool for storage and getting our cameras to play nice together in post. Keep up the good work and keep us posted on the ACR updates.
Yes wonderful idea, I'll write the document instead of the developer who we paid and who has missed several of his own deadlines.
Let me begin.. Page 1: throw camera into fireplace :-)
@dubzeebass - I have to hold my hands up and apologize for the absent Resolve user guide update. I'm not one for making excuses and I do genuinely feel bad that we haven't yet delivered the updated guide or managed to get the new website online. We are working hard to deliver these and more.
I honestly cannot give you a firm date for the new guide as it includes a certain amount of online video content that still needs editing but it will be soon. The feedback from the Cinelog-C Resolve pre-release has been fantastic but it has also highlighted a need for more basic user education from us so the scope of what we will offer has to expand to meet this. This is also why we delayed the official release of the Cinelog-C luts.
We haven't stopped development and I'm 100% sure you will appreciate what we are going to deliver. I am an end-user/colorist too so I know what is needed and most useful in a color grading workflow. We are tackling the lut loading issue with a bespoke OCIO configuration that you can use in many NLE's and grading apps natively or via a free plugin. The aim is to give you close, if not identical, results from all apps that can support our luts and do this in a very efficient way without you needing to find and load luts all the time. We're also going to make it far easier for you to use lut packs from other vendors and ensure you are in the correct colorspace to use them ;)
...but the updated Resolve guide is coming and is a priority.
If you have any specific questions or need help please email me anytime. I'm happy to help.
Every time it takes it's worth it! Can't wait for the tutorial realese and other stuff, it will be nice to have it, but the wait is okey. Thank you very much for making good tutorials and awesome LUT's. After finding your luts my quailty increased a big bit in my Resolve workflow. I would be glad if there will be a long tutorial and tips on storing your RAW 5D3 footage in a more "compressed" way.
Best Regards from Sweden!
/ Karl
@allemyr
it is very smart to store all the important video files on a big hd in raw format as backup.
the tools get better over the time, eg. improvements, bug fixes, stripes correction addition or whatever..
greets.
Hi Andy,
Downloaded last night having a go at things right now as they say straight out the box fantastic.
Im very new to video so Im crawling at the moment but its very comforting to know there are
people that are gracious enough to help others on this forum.
Have a very nice one. Alan.
I am also waiting on the guide. I like the results that I have been getting, but it's probably not the optimal workflow. When can we expect this, Andy?
i am also waiting,
and i have to admit that i dont really like companies that don´t meet announcements..
Im gonna jump in and ask when we can expect an update as well? I would never request such a thing, but you did essentially sell a product in beta form, numerous of us were so impressed that we payed in advance assuming you were somewhat close. Its been several months, and Im even on a new camera and Ive yet to see any updates to workflow suggestions, look luts, or any of the promised inclusions that we paid for. I understand it required sophisticated equipment to develop these, but at this point the I honestly feel your product is incomplete and although I didnt mind waiting a little bit for more development, its been quite a while without any updates from you.
Can you please provide some type of ETA for updates, as any other product would? Otherwise I dont feel it was fair for you to charge for these.. Visioncolor provides VisionLog for free and simply charges for the LUTs, and although I tried to support a smal project like your own, Im beginning to wonder if it was a good idea. I hope you are able to change my mind about that, as it seems others feel the same way about the unacceptable delay. Many thanks!
@QuickHitRecord, @swinxx, @Jbowdach and all..
Sorry for the lack of updates. I/We really are working flat out. It's mostly just myself and occasionally an engineer who helps me with testing and knows his way around a film scanner.
As I said in my previous post, I'm not one for making excuses. I know how frustrating it is to wait for things but I also know the complexity of this process and the unexpected pitfalls along the way. Time really is my enemy at the moment (OK, and my earlier over-optimistic estimates on delivery have made it much worse - for which I am solely responsible and I again apologize for!) , there just are not enough hours in the day. I will deliver on all that is promised but please remember, I'm working alone most of the time and Cinelog is not yet big enough to employ another member of staff, let alone one who has the required knowledge.
Anyway, to try to shed a little light on what I'm doing, here is a status update on Cinelog-C (not including the website update and LutBank which is being done in parallel by myself and a currently absent web designer).
Cinelog-C will work with any color/editing app that can support luts and/or ICC profiles either natively or via plugins.
An important feature of the new Cinelog-C lut pack (not yet released) is reconfiguring everything to work with OpenColorIO. We have built application specific OCIO configurations which you can use with free OFX plugins in After Effects, Premier Pro, Resolve, Nuke (native support), Natron, Sony Vegas and others. OpenColorIO is a frame work that lets us use variables and matrices for getting to and from colorspaces which means accuracy and efficiency. In some cases this also allows for GPU acceleration and exporting of custom transform luts (you choose what goes in and what comes out and it will generate a lut for you). Alongside logspace transfer functions you will also be able to transfer to/from their colorspace counterparts. This means if you want to convert Magic Lantern Raw to Slog2/3 it will output not only Slog gamma but also S-Gamut/S-Gamut3/S-Gamut3-Cine wide gamut RGB. All these transforms/transfers are invertible and transferable, even after rendering - if you ever work with a colorist they will love you for this!
We have also added our new film emulation luts to the configurations to ensure the correct colorspace is always used. There are multiple variations (looks) in these 'presets' using ASC CDL files, RGB matrices and luts to show what can be achieved when processed through a PFE lut. All you need to worry about is making sure your white balance is correct for REC709/sRGB.
BTW, We will be redistributing the OCIO plugins (where the license permits) on our new website along with installers or installation instructions (i.e. how to set environmental variables etc). These will be free to download for everyone. Along with the default log transfers already available through OCIO we will include a basic custom config that includes some of the freely available 'log' luts (i.e. VisionLog, Cinestyle) and pseudo-Canon picture styles. The free version will also have de-log functions for all the log curves offered with MLRawViewer. The commercial version has extra OCIO configs making use of our custom luts.
If you don't want to use OCIO all the various configs will be available as high resolution 1D/3D and/or shaper luts (initially in Iridas .cube format) . Lut conversion to any unsupported format is free of charge on request, as are updates/upgrades. Cinelog-C that was sent to current customers is a pre-release upgrade. We don't currently sell this but wanted to give current users a preview pack after it was requested numerous times. With hindsight I probably should have held back until everything was complete. The full release is more extensive.
As with the original Cinelog, Cinelog-C will also be available for Adobe Camera Raw. There are new optimized camera profiles for ACR that are set-and-forget (you only adjust white balance). We have decided to keep things simple and include all supported cameras for each manufacturer in one pack (i.e. all Canon DSLRs or all Blackmagic Cameras etc). The OCIO configuration is slightly different than for other apps as it has additional transfer functions designed to get from the new ACR profile(s) log output to Cinelog-C colorspace before rendering.
Although Cinelog-C is a proper mathematical wide gamut log colorspace (i.e. based on RGB primaries, white point (D65) and a log formula, convertible using a 3x3 RGB matrix), the biggest challenge we have faced is getting a unified output from the myriad of different color grading apps that are available. You would think that a professional NLE would adhere to defined standards but unfortunately this is not always the case! Blackmagic for instance, have never published the formula for BMD Film colorspace so we have had to blindly reverse engineer it to a color matrix and log formula that produces an almost identical output (+/- 3%). We needed to do this because simple color matching using something like Matchlight can only really work on a shot by shot basis and is pretty much limited to the shot you are matching. There are restrictions/limits when debayering ML Raw using Resolves REC709 colorspace (and the current V11 beta has debayering noise issues) but Cinelog-C does have a new ACES transform and we are working on camera IDTs. This part is of course irrelevant if you work exclusively in one NLE or grading app but we do have users who are VFX artists, working in Nuke or AE and who work with colorists who are grading 5D Mark III ML Raw footage on a Baselight or Resolve system. We need to make sure color critical information is always passed between apps.
To give you an idea of the scale of what I/we have had to do (and are still doing), involves testing luts, ICC profiles, OCIO configs etc on 13 different color grading and NLE apps (some I have had to learn the fundamentals of) on multiple platforms plus now some of the lut supporting raw converters (i.e. MLRawViewer) and 2 beta apps that are under NDA. I don't own all these and have to rent software or rent time in grading suites for testing. We also had to rent/borrow several cameras to be sure we are getting consistent results so that when we say that your 7D ML raw footage can be transformed to Alexa Log-C, it actually will be Log-C (as per the Arri white paper) and be comparative to what Log-C from the Alexa actually looks like (within limits, i.e. excluding the differences in sensor, dynamic range and saturation control etc that you get with the Alexa and the debayer quality of the host app).
I also offer detailed email support and have built very technical luts for several of the bigger cameras and poorly supported raw recorders (i.e. FS700/Convergent Design Odyssey) - this is a very small business so I have to take on additional work if it comes in. I'm not saying this to moan, because I genuinely enjoy my work, but purely to offer an explanation of why things can take time. Things will get better!
@Jbowdach re: ETA on release/VisionLog etc
The luts are finalized, the OCIO configurations are built for most apps (about 80% finished - it's a lot of code), the new ACR profiles are finished. I'm still working on documentation - I'm going to limit the written instructions to the absolute basics and do the rest in video tutorials. I still need to build/test the new installers before a final check on all setups that will be supported plus the website needs updating - the new site is actually built but there is quite a bit of content to add. My web helper is ill atm so that part is stalled as I have to focus on the final product push.
re: VisionLog - Yes VisionLog ACR profiles are free and they also provide a BMD to VisionLog lut free, but as you said, you still pay for their other luts and they cost more (I can't express a view on the Impulz or Osaris packs as I don't own them). Also, upgrades? future products etc - will they be free to customers? TBH, without being too technical the VisionLog profile is not, to my knowledge, based on a math formula. It's more of a log 'look' which means dynamic range will take a hit. There is a reason these things should be done with math ;) but if it works for some users then I wont argue.
Sounds promising. Any latest date for the release?
Andy,
I will continue to check this thread regularly as I eagerly await the release of the guide.
In the meantime, is there anything wholly wrong with doing this?
BMDFilm 4K Color Space (Project Settings) + CineLog-C (Project Settings) > Color Balance + Exposure Tweaks (Serial Node) > FilmConvert (Serial Node; Camera set to Arri Alexa Log) > Export
Also, I'm steering clear of using the X-Rite Color Checker tool like you said earlier. Dave Dugdale's questioning the validity of Resolve's color match tool as well: http://www.learningdslrvideo.com/dsc-labs-vs-xrite/
For using Film Converts Film Emulation , what it better suggested.....Cinelog ? or Vision Log?
Cinelog - meet your new best friend. Koji Color.
http://www.paulbeauchamp.co.uk/blog/2014/10/15/pairing-magic-lantern-raw-with-koji-color (http://www.paulbeauchamp.co.uk/blog/2014/10/15/pairing-magic-lantern-raw-with-koji-color)
WOW I have read your blog and what a nice colores !!!
@beauchampy - Very nice, very punchy but above all they look accurate!.. but that's only to be expected from Dale Grahn. They guy is one of the best in the business IMO.
@QuickHitRecord - That workflow will work fine if you're going from raw to deliverable. Re: colorchecker, it's still very useful to have but like a lot of others I can't trust the colorchecker tool. I get the concept completely but there are just too many variables at play for it to work 100% of the time. I hope BMD steer the tool towards raw calibration, maybe as part of their ACES support where it would be much more useful.
Hey Andy,
Any news on the manuals or update?
Thanks!
Just read through this thread and it sounds interesting but I wonder where the latest release is?
You can not find it, cause there is no :(
Hey Andy will there be a Speedgrade workflow integrated with the release of Cinelog-C? I really enjoy the simplicity of Adobe product interaction, would be great if we could add Cinelog-C using Speedgrade and add which ever LUT combination after that within AE/Premiere/Speedgrade...I think you had mentioned before that this was not possible,but just double checking anyway..thank you sir.
Hi Andy,
same here! Cinelog C for Speedgrade would be genius!
Any updates, Andy?
I just purchased the Koji LUTS and looking forward to apply these together with your much anticipated Cinelog-C (hopefully all of us wont get too caught up in the hype!)
Thanks, Andy!
From Sekonic profiles made with my L-478 for my 5D3:
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/ScreenShot2014-12-05at73926AM_zps1c595182.png)
The purple line is BMDFilm4K; the pink line is Cinelog, and the yellow line is H264.
Here's CineLog by itself:
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/ScreenShot2014-12-05at74157AM_zps210b6efc.png)
Compared to: BMDFilm (4K)
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/ScreenShot2014-12-05at74504AM_zps561cd9bf.png)
And H264:
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/ScreenShot2014-12-05at74510AM_zpsba4c5600.png)
Definitely interesting facts regarding your graph -- Thanks for sharing @QuickHitRecord!
Looking forward to your new LUTS soon hopefully @Andy600 ;D
so andy600. you have still 2 hours to release the "we release it this week" promised new cinelog package..
hmm..
C,mon guys cut some slack for @Andy600 since he may be busy with life just like all of us, rightfully so.
Also it would be better for him to take the extra time to correct the minimal issues rather than give out the updates sooner and vice versa.
Just let him do his thing and we will all just be well...
Heck it ain't even Holidays yet!
last week andy told me that the update will come within last week..
so as a cinelog supporter i just wanted to know if i can expect that update or not.
however. andy: good tip: dont make promises, just surprise your costumers. this would be a much better approach.
the same with fullres pic from a1ex for 5dmk3 123: simultaneously with the rawmagic discussion bout the violation of the rights, a1ex stopped updating the 5d mk3123 branch. in august he stated a 2 weeks latency for implementing the fullres pic in the 5dmk3 123 branch. i am waining til today, but he deciced to freeze the ml project. dont get me wrong, i wish him the best!, but now, the euphoria is waned.. perhaps he will return, perhaps not. time will show. but the problem is that people make some sort of promises, others expect them, nothing happens. that really frustrates.
@swinxx -- I understand your frustration as I am cinelog supporter as well. But I don't tend to throw it out there to others. I also do understand the fact that promises are difficult to hold on to. As long as it's not going to be a broken promise then I have no problem with it being 'late' as there may be a good reason for it perhaps to prevent all of us storming emails at @Andy600 just because one of the LUTS he provided didn't work or minimal issues that may arise which could also have been prevented. Does that make sense?
Regarding @a1ex's situation about the full res silent for 1.2.3 -- if I can recall this correctly but I was able to implement and use the Full Res silent on both 1.1.3 & 1.2.3 as far as I'm concerned.
Yes but fullres is not working as expected with 5d ml3 123.. Have tried it and got a lot of errs.
@swinxx -- I'll see if I can give it a try again since I'm currently on 1.1.3 and will confirm to you once I can!
Plus let's try to stay on topic within this thread...
pM me if need to.
Thanks!
Quote from: DeafEyeJedi on December 08, 2014, 01:02:56 AM
C,mon guys cut some slack for @Andy600 since he may be busy with life just like all of us, rightfully so.
The thing is... he promises a certain release window. I tell people that I wanna postpone color grading for a project because I wanna give his new LUTs a try and see if there's any improvement on the basic Cinelog conversion itself. The promised update just doesn't show up, no word from Andy,... so I've waited for nothing and just lost precious time, also disappointed all those who are involved with the project. Just one example of why it's a huge difference if he promises a release window or just says "when it's done" and admits that he doesn't know when all he has planed will be finished.
Again, in my opinion he should take all the time he needs to deliver us - his paying customers - the great product he set out to make. And I think his work so far is amazing, happy to be a supporter. But after failing to hit his own deadlines a couple of times before, he should've learned to just don't promise people any kind of release date.
In any event... I'm so looking forward to his new stuff. 8)
My new video shot with 5D3 and graded with Cinelog C
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=14189.0
Any updates?
Still waiting..., but very much looking forward to the mentioned powergrades and such. Also, any other tips on using cinelog as a toolkit are useful. Will there be an update discussing suggested workflows for various cameras and purposes?
@Jbowdach and everyone - Cinelog-C for Resolve and Adobe Camera Raw should be out today once we get the new look website online - We've literally just sent out a big update email with details of the new products (plus we want your input for our showcase). This will be followed by the actual final release download for current users. The members area (LUT bank) will have the first pack of Film Looks for Cinelog-C and a few other things to download. The LUT Bank content will be added incrementally over the next few weeks. It's gonna be a busy day for us :)
That is a really great news Andy, thanks :) Cant wait to play with it :) I would like to ask if it would be possible to sort if implement cinelog-c to mlrawviewer app as its became such a time saver lately and very usable when there is no time for resolve. Ability to have instant real cinelog-c prores 444 would be awesome.
@kgv5 - If @Baldand can implement a little change to the backend in MLRavViewer and impliment an alternative 3x3 matrix and lin to log formula just for Cinelog-C we should be able to debayer straight to Cinelog-C colorspace without using LUTs. At the moment it uses DCRaw's REC709 primaries. I will happily provide the matrix and log formula if he wants to do it. LUT handling in MLRawViewer is ok but the colorspace limits what we can do using LUTs - I've tested it with some custom Cinelog-C transform luts and there are issues with out of gamut colors and overbrights, plus a 3D transform is needed for the colorspace transform which means you cant then use the 3D lut slot for a viewing LUT - which is needed for assessing exposure compensation and white balance.
All current customers should now have the update(s) - or at least the email telling you how to get it. The new look site is up and the LUT Bank (members area) is partially online - but still being built.
We're also having a 48 hour launch sale with 15% off all Cinelog-C products. www.cinelogdcp.com (http://www.cinelogdcp.com)
Happy New Year @Andy600 and will definitely test them!
Thanks for your hard work on this!
Thank you so much,I have already tested the AE workflow with the OpenColorIO and everything is playing very very nice with each other. The over all involvement you have invested and made for Cinelog is amazing.Thank you again sir and I can not wait to get even deeper into the testing the numerous open methods of transformations we can now make with Cinelog's newest updates. Thanks again @Andy600..
can you accept paypal?
Thank you, Andy! Can't wait to check it all out! :)
Many thanks Andy600! Quick question: These aren't matching the previous folder layout of CinelogDCP v3, so is this intended to replace the previous version? If not, can you please advise which folders these should be combined with from the previous version of CinelogDCP? Its getting confusing between v2, v3 and the newest version which is the correct workflow, which to retire, etc? Many thanks for advising.
@Jbowdach - Sorry I forgot to mention what to do about older versions. You can retain them in the camera profiles folder if you wish but use V3.0 as it is easier to work with and has the correct delogging curve in the OCIO config. I'll add an OCIO transform soon for legacy profiles (i.e. for any older footage that you have previously rendered or archived with the original or v2 profiles). The folder hierarchy isn't important so long as the v3 profiles folder is in the main camera profiles folder.
@bennyray1 - Great to hear! This is something we have worked on for a long time so it's great to finally put it out. There is still a lot more to come ;)
@DeafEyeJedi @DanHaag - You're most welcome! a Very happy New Year to you and everyone else too!
@kgv5 - I saw @Baldand's reply about MLRawViewer. A totally understandable pov. We will try and do something with MLRawViewer once we have finished the first stage of our website updates but I need to set up a compiler and have a better look at the code - I'm a novice when it comes to that part so I can't promise anything.
Hey Andy, since there are different ways one could approach using FilmConvert or LUTs like Koji, ImpulZ, (...) with Cinelog - which order of operation do you personally prefer for ML raw (MLV) footage in Resolve?
The way I understand, it's best to go BMD 4k -> Cinelog -> AlexaLogC -> FilmConvert / LUT with AlexaLogCFilm settings. I got promising results with this workflow so far, still would like to know how you're doing it and see if that works even better. :)
Apart from that: I'm still looking for a way to give my ML raw footage just a clean, natural look. No "film look" or whatever all those LUTs and filters supply, just colors that are as close as possible to what my eyes would see in real life. Even with just transferring the footage i.e. into Rec.709 color space and doing a proper white balance, colors always seem to be a bit off. Not expecting any magic here, there's a lot of correction and grading one might have to perform and I understand that there are a lot of factors concerning the ways the image is filmed in the first place. Just interested in the basic workflow you would use to just get a natural looking picture from raw filmed images. UPDATE: Alright, figured out that I shouldn't be too shy of using the tint control in the camera raw tab. That solved it for me. ;)
Thanks again for working so hard on Cinelog and answering all the questions on this board. The way I see it, you just revolutionized raw post production for Magic Lantern in a way no other third party developer has done so far.
@DanHaag - I don't think there is a magic workflow in Resolve or any other color app TBH. It's more about understanding the raw footage metadata, the display device (i.e. your monitor or TV) and the colorspace that they use.
With ML raw footage in Resolve you have to make important decisions about the white balance to be sure you have a neutral starting point but with ML Raw it can be a little difficult if the metadata is not complete. We recently provided a list of the dual illuminant color matrices for each camera - MLVFS and raw2cdng both now embed these into the exported/extracted DNG files but most other raw convertors do not.
When the DNG is read by resolve it uses these matrices to map RGB channels to the colorspace selected (i.e. BMD Film). If the matrices are incorrect the white point will shift (sometimes massively) and you will see a noticeable tint to the image. With the new matrices Resolve has enough data to be able to give you neutral 'AS SHOT' white - BUT the shot MUST always be white balanced correctly when shooting!
If you look at the Camera Raw panel in Resolve you will see a number next to the tint offset. This offset is the amount of magenta/green bias shift needed for neutral white. So, for instance, I have a DNG which needs a 44.04 tint offset (this is a different number for most shots) but I also want to warm-up the image so I select a color temp preset (i.e. daylight). Now resolve will reset the offset to it's internal defaults for daylight - so you need to make sure to move the tint offset back to 44.04 - i.e. you will have daylight color temp with a tint offset of 44.04. Then you can use the color temp slider to get the balance to your linking. The best way to white balance is using the vectorscope and a qualifier to isolate a neutral patch (i.e. using a gray or white balance card when shooting).
As for reproducing the most neutral color with Cinelog-C, I would suggest BMD Film to Cinelog-C (or BMD Film 4K to Cinelog-C) then Cinelog-C to REC709 Full or REC709 Legal. These luts simply map Cinelog-C colorspace to REC709 primaries with the REC709 transfer curve. I would suggest this setup when setting your color temps / offsets and for exposure compensation. You can then grade under the REC709 lut or remove it and use one of our film luts for instance. If you want to use a 3rd party LUT (i.e. a VisionColor lut for the Alexa) just add the Cinelog-C to Alexa Wide gamut RGB lut before it so the sequence would be:
BMD Film to Cinelog-C > Cinelog-C to Alexa Wide Gamut RGB > Vision Alexa LUT (I would also suggest trying the Alexa Wide gamut RGB with Film Matrix transform which has more filmic saturation).
We'll put the basic online Resolve guide on the website asap but will expand the content over time to show you different methods of working.
That explains a lot, thanks again for your help! Looking forward to the Resolve guides. Already having a blast with the new Cinelog, it really was worth the wait. :)
BTW - Things are a bit different in Adobe Camera Raw. The color matrices contained in a DNG are always overridden by matrices embedded in a digital camera profile so it doesn't matter if the raw convertor added the wrong ones. The new matrices that MLVFS and raw2CDNG use are the same as Adobe Standard.
Thanks @Andy600 for your deep depth explanation regarding the workflows w your LUTS. Looking forward to testing them out this weekend when I get back from work on the road!
I forgot to mention Im using Davini Resolve, not AE version. Hence I have a HUGE mess of Cinelog LUTs in my Resolve folder. Could you please advise how to combine the update w the Resolve version so I can easily jump through the 5 different types of LUTs w/o having so many different file naming schemes , etc?
Essentially, is may be easier if you could provide the entire package as one instead of an update? Or at least if you could advise regarding which LUTs can be combined within the previous 5 folders in the v3 folder structure (unless it really requires a 6th folder).
Just trying to make this easier to use during a fast paced grading session and my cinelog folders are a mess. Many thanks and looking forward to more in the LUT bank.
Invested in both versions earlier, but would love to support the ACR version as well. Would you happen to have a coupon for those who already have purchase \ supported the project? I think it would be a great addition to my toolkit aside from having it in Resolve.
Many thanks!!
I am very interested in the ACR version as I find ACR's debayering to be superior to all the others.
What I've noticed with VisionLog is that Shadows could be raised more and aswell Highlights could be lowered more.. But ofcourse when I do that I introduce flicker if highlights or colours are changing too much.. But still I always raise shadows to see if I can get away, flicker free..
Raising shadows when using VisionLog might introduce some noise, but the "information"-gained-to-noise-ratio is totally worth it and I have always been sucessful with removing the noise so that I have achieved more DR in shadows without having noise ruining the shot.
Would be nice with a screenshot of Cinelog and Visionlog side by side comparison. If shadows are raised more in Cinelog, you got yourself a new customer.
@jbowdach - Cinelog-C replaces all previous versions including the pre-release. Previously we hadn't fully worked out a reliable method for building the colorspace transforms into shaper luts. Colorspace transforms must be fully invertible and transferable. The new [Transform] luts are just that.
The Display Transform luts are also colorspace transforms but include the output transform associated with each colorspace (i.e. ProPhoto with it's 1.8 gamma transfer curve).
The REC709 and Film Look luts are built specifically for Cinelog-C colorspace.
I'll PM you :)
@Kharak - With Cinelog you do not touch the highlight and shadow controls in ACR. The only things you adjust (if needed) is white balance and exposure offset. Noise reduction and sharpening are optional.
The VisionLog curve is a bit odd and has flat spots so it's likely it's not based entirely on a formula. The Cinelog v3.0 transfer curve is a precise log formula including an offset to compensate for ACR display gamma plus it's hard coded to 12bit values (i.e. better than actually needed).
The only function of these curves is to get the signal from ACR to the host (After Effects) without clipping and with as little manipulation as possible. Ideally, a scene linear DCP profile would be best but this would certainly clip the signal during the transfer between ACR and AE (linear in ACR is basically sRGB with 0.454545 gamma offset and not the same thing as scene linear). A log curve should not ordinarily have any flat spots (especially in the mid tones). The only flat spot that may be in a log curve is a tiny linear (straight line) portion at the low end to minimize sensor noise.
I will post an A/B between Cinelog V3.0 and VisionLog but it wont really tell you anything. The critical bit is accurate inversion of the curve to scene linear values to restore every F-stop. Cinelog v3.0 will store ~13.5 F-Stops and passes the data from ACR to AE without any clipping. There is a lot of scope for manipulating the shadows and highlights when it comes to grading. The transform from Cinelog V3.0 to Cinelog-C in After Effects is there to ensure all pixel values fit within a 10bit container so you can export a log master (ProRes /DNxHD) containing all the data.
Edit: http://we.tl/2hB6hxkceO This shot is pushing the DR of a 50D to the max. The lights were clipped slightly when it was shot. Images show the curves and how both profiles appear in AE with identical settings plus how Cinelog V3.0 looks when it's transformed to Cinelog-C wide gamut. Check out the highlight detail ;)
Yes ofcourse, what I meant by my post was that I hope I don't have to raise shadows/lower highlights with Cinelog, like I always feel the need to do with Vision log. Because (I feel) Vision log does not utilize it's curve properly. And thereby introducing the possibility of flicker depending on the scene as I always raise the shadows with Visionlog (if it does not introduce any noticeable flicker)
And even when using the impulz luts with visionlog profile I still get better results if I tamper with Shadows and highlights.. Or to be more frank, I get better looking results and higher DR. Which is weird as its from the same developer.
tampering with shadows/highlights works against your transformations, I totally understand that. What I want most of all is a Log image out of ACR without flicker, preferably with more DR than what Visionlog offers. If I knew how, I would change the parameters of visionlog to increase shadow gain and have highlights lowered, but I am sure its not as simple as that.. Alas, I want it bad enough that I would pay for it.
Thanks for taking the time for making a detailed reply to me. I can't look at the link at the moment, I am on a phone.
I'm still becoming familiar with the recent updates, but I just want to add what a great job you've done in making the MLV workflow a more viable and professional one. I look forward to the upcoming additions to the tutorial section and LUT Bank :)
This is definitely good to know!
+1 @Andy600
;D
p.s. I just got back from a week long road-trip for work and will get myself started on the testings w your new LUT's.
although I got a question (maybe its already been answered) but do I use a Cinestyle (from Technicolor) to use as a color profile in the 5D3 or would you suggest a different FLAT neutral version?
*cheers*
Unless you're recording h264, the in camera profiles will have no effect on your recorded files. They may act as a visual reference on your LCD screen or external monitor when recording raw files, and that reference can carry on if the profile is selected in ACR, but if you want to use cinelog then you would choose that profile instead. It's more a matter of exposing correctly, though Andy probably has specific advice with regards to exposing for cinelog.
Yes, the in-camera Picture Style has absolutely no connection with MLV.
Pictures Styles are referenced in the metadata of raw stills and baked into H.264 but completely omitted for raw video so it doesn't matter what you use. For me personally, I tend to use Canon's Video-X Picture Style (with the contrast dialed down to 2) just for a visual reference - why? no particular reason.
I don't have a 'golden rule' for exposure and I tend to assess every scene differently using the raw exposure aids - not my eyes. Exposure techniques used in photography apply equally to raw video and lighting is always the most important factor.
It's far more important to make proper use of the raw exposure aids when recording MLV. I always have raw zebras and ETTR hint enabled.
ETTR is great for better signal to noise ratio but it's not ideal for everything.
If it's a difficult, low ambient light scene but has areas of intense point lighting (for instance, a car's headlights), ETTR will mean you are effectively exposing for the car's headlights (as that is the brightest thing in the scene and the thing that raw metering will reference) - thus pushing the important elements into noisy under-exposure.
You will often need to clip more of the highlight information (specular highlights and things that emit light such as headlights, neon signs etc) than you think to get good exposure of the main subject (actor, product etc). How much you need to clip depends on the camera, lens and subject lighting.
I make adjustments to ISO depending on the lighting conditions (lower ISO for well lit scenes and higher ISO for low light) and set the aperture depending on the depth of field (DOF) I want to achieve (but not always possible). The DOF is always dictated by the lens aperture, the maximum useable ISO of my camera and, most importantly, the lighting conditions. I then frame and focus the shot before hitting record
but..
If I'm shooting MLV on my old 50D, I know that the maximum useable ISO is 800 before noise becomes too much of an issue. If I use my widest lens (F1.4 50mm) I know it is too soft at maximum aperture so the widest I can go is F2.0. If I do not have control over scene lighting, these 2 things limit what I can hope to achieve with that camera and lens combination. If I can't get a good exposure within these limits I simply don't hit record.
When it comes to dynamic range you also have to remember this:
The lower the ambient/available light is = the wider the lens aperture needs to be + the higher the ISO you must use.
As you increase the ISO you decrease the maximum dynamic range of the light being captured/recorded and as you open the aperture wider it will also decrease the DOF. What this means is that sometimes you just cannot hope to get the shot in the way you envisaged, or even not at all. The available lighting and your equipment (or lack of) will limit what you can hope to achieve. It's technology and physics.
Canon DSLRs, in optimum lighting conditions can capture ~11 F-stops (scene linear) but this only applies to optimal lighting conditions. In reality it's more like 8-10 F-stops at best. A wide, establishing shot of a night time city scene, with a mix of very dark areas (alleyways, unlit shop interiors etc) and very bright areas (street lights, illuminated shop windows and car headlights) can exceed 15-20 F-stops so you, as the DOP, must choose what it is that is most important for the audience to see and expose for that.
I knew that the picture profiles really have no affect to the RAW/MLV recordings but I guess I should have been more clear with my previous question -- would it be more helpful to use a modified picture profiles in camera to give you the idea of what it MAY look like once finalIzed in color grade.
Basically like how some SmallHD monitors can do with MONITOR LUT's but without that and somehow manage to get it close to that on the LCD within the DSLR's.
However, I appreciate your eagerness in typing down extreme details that can be useful for me and others to keep in mind when it comes to exposing properly.
Coming from a photography background definitely helps me with the understanding of how to read the Histogram (RGB) and sometimes using the ETTR can affect my shots differently (not always) so it really depends on the situation just like you mentioned above.
I'm still narrowing down my testing with the new Cinelog LUTS...
Any new updates in the LUT bank as of yet?
Thanks again @Andy600 for your kind business, as always!
Hi Andy,
For the last days im trying the new version of Cinelog 3.0 and i come to a sequence of DNG's that i can't see in ACR, Camera Profile the Cinelog option. I think is because of my DNG's. This is the link for one DNG for see if you can see whats happen. Thanks =)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0snd985ty0qh4uf/M10-1938_000000.dng?dl=0
Which converter did you use @arrinkiiii?
Hi DeafEyeJedi,
I use MlRviewer... but the last versions didn't read my RAW file, so i have to use 1.3.3 version for read this file. I think is because is a RAW file and don't have metadata... and in ACR he don't have enough information for see what camera is, etc... (7D) I got like 20 files like this and would to like to use the cinelog profile/curve.
Thanks for the help =)
@arrinkiii - What app did you use to convert/extract this DNG? and what camera is it?
The metadata is wrong (in several places) and it doesn't have the correct UniqueCameraModel tag for your camera - it just says Canon EOS (No camera uses this name!). You can fix this using Exiftool but if all of the images that you are having issues with were converted with the same app I can send you a custom .dcp that will read them in ACR - I just need to know the camera model they were shot on.
The color from these images will be probably be wrong in Resolve - If you use Resolve you will definitely need to fix the metadata with Exiftool.
I suggest to anyone who extracts DNG from MLV files to do the following:
Mac users should only use MLVFS and Windows users should only use raw2cdng
Because, at present, they are the only 2 apps that currently embed the correct matix metadata (unique to each camera model).
@DeafEyeJedi (still love the name :D)
Creating accurate Picture Styles that mimic what a specific LUT does is a pain in the a**. Ideally we could just translate the actual LUTs we make to Canon's Picture Style format but that's near on impossible with the tools available. We have thought about creating some Filmic Picture Styles (not log) for H.264/Jpeg based on the characteristics of certain Film Stocks but I can't say when or even if it will ever happen. It depends on what time I have and at preset all my time is devoted to adding LUT Bank content.
If you login to the LUT bank you will see the updates/additions scheduled for release this week. The new Quick Start guide for Cinelog-C (Resolve version) will be online in a couple of hours.
While writing the guide it made me think of a few important gotchas regarding MLV metadata. These really need documenting, so sometime in the next week I will write another article - It will not be limited to LUT bank members as it affects all Magic Lantern /MLV users.
@arrinkiiii -- as much as I love @baldand's MLRawViewer (I still use it) but prefer to use @dmiligan's MLVFS w Cinelogs.
@andy600 -- Thanks! Figured. Makes sense regarding Picture Styles. Not that important atm but sure can be useful for lazy people like me. lol. Will definitely check out the updates/additions frequently when I can.
Looking forward to your article and much appreciated for your work-ethics, Andy!
Thanks Andy and DeafEyeJedi for the help =)
Im using ACR on Windows 7 (64) with MLRawViewer. MLVFS on my windows machine don't work good, unfortunately.
Yes, all of the images that im having issues with were converted with the same app. It would awesome if you can send me a custom .dcp for the ACR read them, my camera is a 7D.
Other question regarding the workflow whit ACR-AE-OpenColorIO
-For example: I use in ACR the Cinelog 3.0, them i close it and put one OpenColorIO in the file. Do i need to chose the input with Cinelog 3.0 (ACR) and output Cinelog and them open other OpenColorIO and chose custom and chose a LUT from your bank or, since that in ACR i already chose the Cinelog profile, i can just open one OpenColorIO and chose costum and chose my LUT from the bank?
@arrinkiiii
Can you PM your email address so I can send you the custom profile?
I'm not sure I fully understand your question but the basic workflow with the Film Look LUTs would be:
1. Starting in After Effects - Import your image sequence - This opens ACR
2. Select the Cinelog V3.0 profile, click OK to go back to After Effects
3. right+click on the imported file, select Interpret footage and change the frame rate, click OK
4. Add the file to your timeline (or create a new comp, 32bit/REC709)
5. Add the OpenColorIO plugin (found in effects/utilities)
6. Select the Cinelog-C config in the plugin
7. Choose Cinelog V3.0 as the Input Space and Cinelog-C as the Output space
8. Add another OpenColorIO plugin but this time choose Custom from the drop down menu - this will open the browser.
9. Choose a Look Lut
If you have Look Luts for a different colorspace (i.e. Impulz for Log-C) you would choose Alexa Wide Gamut Log-C EI800 as the Output space instead of Cinelog-C and load the Impulz lut in the second OCIO plugin
If you have some non-raw Log footage (i.e. Slog from a Sony camera, Canon Log from the C300, Log-C from the Alexa or Amira etc) and want to use the Cinelog Film Looks, just choose the colorspace of the Log footage as the Input space and Cinelog-C as the Output space, then choose the Film lut in the second OCIO plugin.
You don't need to use the OCIO plugin for hosting LUTs but it has better interpolation than the native After Effects LUT plugin.
If you want to use MLRawViewer (which can apply several Log options), you should remember that all MLRV Log options use REC709 primaries and white point. MLRV does not target the full colorspace (i.e. it only does 1D linear to log transforms) and will not work with the Cinelog-C OpenColorIO config or Cinelog Look Luts at present.
hello @andy600
i just study your tutorial for davinci resolve and wonder why my use video monitor selection for scope the video monitor output not the timeline output is set to gray in the options menu.. is this only for the full resolve version?
greets swinxx
edit: i got it. thx
Hi Swinxx,
Glad you worked it out! Everything in the Guide relates to both the free (Lite) and paid versions of DaVinci Resolve. I know most users will probably be using the Lite version.
The workflow I describe is deliberate so that what you see is REC709 but what you render is Cinelog-C. There are a multitude of other workflows but I wanted to start the Guide with one that demonstrates a simple transcoding workflow to give you log files and also show some of the versatility of Resolve's lut management. We will cover some of the other methods in future guides.
If you ever think something is not explained well please do let me know. I'm not precious about my tutorial writing skills :)
very nice explained andy.. thank you.
i always denoise before i make any lut transforms but you can not do that in the lite version without 3rd party plugins like neat ofx..
however. well done. i will try out.
the problem which i always have is, that all the dslrs have problems with green gras.. most of the time that green looks just awful..
greet.s
In the LUT bank "Print Emulation LUTs for Cinelog-C pack 01" and "Film Looks for Cinelog-C - Pack 1" have the same archive file name and seem to contain the same LUTs. Or are they in some way different but just labeled identically? ???
@DanHaag - Thanks for letting me know. The link is now fixed.
@swinxx - Thanks. For better grass try some of the film looks. This is something we can look at addressing in a tutorial so I'll add it to the list.
@andy600.
im looking forward to handle the green problem but unfortunately i think this is not possible.
@Andy600 - i have such a question - i am trying to set LUT for scopes in resolve 11 for proper image balancing but i have those options greyed out (4 tabs which you marked with the red box in "scope and viewer LUT" section) . I set input and monitor LUTs according to your tutorial, could i miss something? Second thing - what is the difference between REC709 wide DR (v1 and v2) and REC709 FM wide DR (v1 and 2)? Is it right to use one of them for balacing shoth versus REC709 FULL? THanks
@swinxx - It's possible to fix using a secondary color correction but not so easy with a primary grade as changes to the green channel will likely impact skin tones - but we will look at a few methods in a tut soon.
@kgv5 - I'll have to take a look at Resolve Lite (which I don't have installed at present). Can you use the following work-around for the moment?-
Instead of adding the Cinelog-C to REC709 to the monitor slot, add it to the 3D output Lookup Table slot instead (this will make Resolve's monitor and Scopes see a REC709 signal).
Make your white balance corrections (if needed)
Just before rendering go back to the Lookup table panel and remove the Cinelog-C to REC709 Lut - This will mean your rendered video will be Cinelog-C.
As for the Wide DR and FM luts - Wide DR v1 has highlight recovery, Wide DR v2 has highlight and shadow recovery - These only affect the output gamma of the signal but have the same RGB primaries and white point (i.e. REC709).
Both Wide DR luts give you a little more room to adjust the levels/curves and both usually require more work. They are OK to use when white balancing the image BUT I would recommend using the Cinelog-C to REC709 lut as it has a well balanced S-curve.
The FM versions use Alexa Film matrix primaries. They are slightly more saturated and vibrant, plus produce hue twists for greater color separation. They have a D65 white point but I would not use these for balancing, they are more of a look. The Film Matrix is primarily used in conjunction with Print Luts (PFE) but I've built REC709 versions simply to give you another choice.
If you simply want a good REC709 output use the Cinelog-C to REC709 lut.
FYI - REC709 (it's proper name is ITU-R BT.709) is actually not a look. It is the SMPTE specification for HDTV display.
REC709 has a D65 white point and a recommended gamma of 2.35 (but this usually varies between 1.9 - 2.4). The transfer curve of REC709 is steep and clips - this is why we use an S-curve. The S-curve pulls down the highlights and pulls up the shadows, yet still has good contrast in the midtones.
In simple terms, the REC709 colorspace can be thought of as a small container (with ~6 F-stops, a specific white point and defined RGB boundaries) into which you are trying to squash a much bigger signal (i.e. your camera's ~11 F-stops of DR), yet still retain a good balance between contrast with minimal or no clipping.
Quote from: swinxx on January 14, 2015, 06:54:50 AM
@andy600.
im looking forward to handle the green problem but unfortunately i think this is not possible.
Hi swinxx, can you please post a few examples of bad greens (foliage), and then perhaps some examples from tv or film where you feel it looks right? I find myself paying more attention to the quality of foliage colour as captured on screen, especially if shot on an Arri Alexa. From my limited experience so far I find that LUTs emulating Kodak Vision 3 50D 5203 negative stock then to produce more pleasing looking greens. Grass in general tends to look better when bluer light falls on it, thereby partially neutralising the yellow content and allowing the true green saturation to come through.
Interesting point @baldavenger & @Andy600 as always thanks for the follow up on these important factors!
Quote from: Andy600 on January 14, 2015, 12:42:03 PM
Instead of adding the Cinelog-C to REC709 to the monitor slot, add it to the 3D output Lookup Table slot instead (this will make Resolve's monitor and Scopes see a REC709 signal).....
Thanks for the explanation Andy and i will surely try your work around.
@swinxx - re: green channel/grass/foliage. Try the new Cinelog Universal Film REC709 LUTs in the Lut bank. They should help a lot ;)
Quote from: Andy600 on January 18, 2015, 03:14:03 PM
@swinxx - re: green channel/grass/foliage. Try the new Cinelog Universal Film REC709 LUTs in the Lut bank. They should help a lot ;)
Good call @Andy600!
@Andy:
greenproblems:
thx for the new luts but they do not work in my case.
i hate to shoot in the middle of a sunny day with so many harsh lights but in this case, the time was limited so we have to take this shot. i know that it is possible to mangle the colors in resolve but i hoped that a lut solution could probably safe a lot of time. perhaps you can have a sneak look at the dng which is here:
https://copy.com/XzDWmt6JGpJk0n7v
thx. sw
@swinxx - The raw file looks OK and greens look quite nice under the Universal Film LUT on my FSI monitor and Panasonic Plasma.
Can you export a frame from Resolve with the BMD Film to Cinelog-C and Cinelog-C to REC709 luts applied? I think your issue may be white balance related but I don't know what you are seeing on your monitor or what your color temp/tint settings are. Also, what kind of look are you trying to achieve? Do you have a reference image from a film etc?
Did you shoot a neutral reference in any shots? i.e. a gray card, colorchecker chart etc?
Hi Andy600.. I've got one question regarding Cinelog-C workflow. I would like to make timelapse video but single frame will be a merge of 3 images (luminosity masks). Then I would like to export final frame to TIFF. I would like to export final sequence to prores 4444 Cinelog-C. Is there a possibility to convert sRGB to Cinelog-C ? What color profile should I choose in Lightroom ? Standard or Neutral ? I would like to correct only a white balance in Ligtroom and maybe some lens settings..
marekk
Hi @marekk,
I'm not personally a Lightroom user but you can certainly use the ACR version of Cinelog-C to export a log image from Lightroom. Technically you can transform from sRGB to Cinelog-C but I would not recommend it as the transfer functions (i.e. the remapping of curve code values) are not compatible and the signal would be clamped.
LR does not support LUTs but it does support Digital Camera Profiles.
Personally, I would do this kind of thing in After Effects but the initial linear-to-log conversion is still possible in Lightroom. I'll assume you are working with raw images (not baked JPEGs etc) in Lightroom and I suggest the following workflow:
Make your white balance, lens corrections and exposure compensation (if needed) for each image using the Standard profile in LR - this is just so you can judge the balance better because it's hard to do this looking at a very flat log image.
Make your luminosity masks (I haven't done this part in LR so I can't be sure how it works) so you end up with your 3-into-1 shot composites.
When you're happy with the balance, change the profile for each shot to Cinelog V3.0 (there are V3.0 profiles for most cameras in the Cinelog-C ACR pack). This will give you a log image with sRGB primaries and should retain any adjustments you made to white balance etc.
Export your composites to 16bit TIFF image sequences.
In AE, PPro, Resolve etc: Import your image sequence and add a Cinelog V3.0 to Cinelog-C transform (in AE/Premier this would usually be done with the OCIO plugin using the Cinelog-C configuration and in Resolve or other NLE's you would use the Cinelog V3.0 to Cinelog-C LUT). You can then use any of the Cinelog REC709 or Film Look luts.
You don't have to transform to Cinelog-C. You could transform to other colorspaces i.e. if you have other lut packs like Impulz, Koji etc.
@marekk - Also, we should be able to build an ICC profile for Lightroom that defines the Cinelog-C colorspace (it would appear along with sRGB, proPhoto etc) but I need to look into LR architecture first. If it's the same as Photoshop it shouldn't be a problem.
Andy, I would really appreciate it if you could do a tutorial on your site about using Cinelog-converted footage with FilmConvert (maybe also Koji, Osiris and others as well). I've experimented a lot, but I still don't think that I am tapping the full potential of this combination.
@QuickHitRecord - There will be color grading tuts and we will look at how Cinelog-C can be used to bridge to other LUTs and app presets from other companies. Cinelog-C is essentially a colorspace management system that allows you to target a defined colorspace. For instance, if you have a LUT or a preset that expects Canon Log DCI P3+ colorspace (i.e. from a C500 set to record DCI P3+), you can transform the colorspace and log transfer curve of your 5D Mark III DNG images to Canon Log DCI P3+. Think of it as like being able to fit a square peg in a round hole by mathematically transforming the square peg into a round one with the exact dimensions of the round hole.
Obviously, we have no control over how other vendors produce their LUTs/Presets/Profiles etc and can only hope they work within industry standards (such as SMPTE standards, Ampas ACES, OpenColorIO etc). SMPTE standards, color management frameworks and the manufacturer's own publications (i.e. those from Sony, ARRI, Canon etc) are there to define the exact chromaticity and curve/formula or transfer function of each colorspace and everything should be checked and measurable. Any app that can assign a colorspace or transfer function is built to these standards. If a vendor has simply made a few grades and exported these as LUTs to sell without any thought as to the source footage then there is no telling what will happen - sadly, there are quite a few who do this and nearly all of them get it wrong.
Everything we do that could be classed as a 'look' is always from Cinelog-C colorspace and we offer a means to transform most other colorspaces to/from Cinelog-C.
I think colorspaces, log formula, LUTs, Camera Profiles, cameras etc are also things we should go into more detail about because there is a lot of confusion out there. I have a huge list of topics to cover and will work through them. I'm aiming for 1-2 tuts/articles a week but bear with me ;)
But andy: am i missing something??
In my case I have converted the canon 5d material in davinci from bmd film (cause bmdfilm4k is a bit darker) to cinelog-c.
In the next step - just out if interest - i converted it to bmdfilm.
As the real bmdfilm camera provides different sensor output, the raw material looks diffrrent. So in my case the material looks the same as the source material, so when i take a bmd lut, eg a bmdfilm to rec709 lut, it looks wrong. What i expected was the transformation to bmdfilm material (colorwise) when using the cinelog to bmdfilm lut. So thats not the case. Can you explain that please. Thx
@swinxx - I think you must be doing something wrong but I can't say exactly what unless I can see what you are seeing. The Cinelog-C to BMD Film LUT is an exact inversion of the BMD Film to Cinelog-C LUT. Are you sure you are using the Cinelog-C luts and not any of the older Cinelog LUTs?
To test the transform for yourself - Import a shot and set the camera raw panel to BMD Film with Highlight Recovery switched on. Then can create 2 nodes. Add BMD Film to Cinelog-C to the first node and Cinelog-C to BMD Film to the second then press ctrl+D to bypass the nodes - The image will not change i.e. the first LUT cancels the second LUT. If you do see a change double check you are only using the new Cinelog-C transform luts (they all have [TRANSFORM] in the name). You don't even need a calibrated monitor to check this as the Scopes in Resolve will show you what is happening - but you really should be using a good calibrated monitor when color grading.
BMD Film colorspace is not published. We had to reverse engineer it using the DNG matrices of DNG files from the Cinema, Pocket and 4K cameras. Everything is mathematical i.e. we haven't had to tweak it by drawing curves or making hue/sat adjustments with color wheels. We use the transfer function (the curve) of BMD Film (the same BMD Film to Linear curve that is in Resolve) and a 3x3 RGB matrix to map the color to/from CIE XYZ. We tested everything through ACES to be 100% sure.
BMD Film only looks darker because it's transfer function has less dynamic range than Cinelog-C. The exposure offset between a BMCC shot and a 5D mark III at 800ISO is ~-1 F-stop so you will need to increase exposure roughly 1 F-stop for 5D mark III footage. Exposure in Resolve is a non destructive linear function, independent of gamma.
A raw DNG image has NO colorspace. The colorspace is prescribed using single or sets of color matrices that map camera RGB pixel values to CIE XYZ at 1 or more illuminants. CIE XYZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space#Definition_of_the_CIE_XYZ_color_space) is the common connecting colorspace used by all (well, most) raw processing apps including Resolve.
A DNG from the BMCC differs slightly from an ML DNG because it has a log-to-linear curve embedded in the metadata (this curve is used only for compression - i.e. compressed CinemaDNG) but the color matrices in the DNG files of BM and EOS cameras map from camera RGB to CIE XYZ. If you are seeing any color/hue difference between the cameras it is due to the sensor. This is what ACES was developed for - to match shots from any camera to a common colorspace and that depends entirely on the accuracy of the Input Device transform (IDT) - Only ARRI seem to have got this part 100% visually accurate so far. We are working on the EOS ACES IDTs ;)
Anyway, sorry for the little detour into color science but I think it's important to at least understand the basics. If you can export a frame (TIFF, DPX, ProRes, DNxHD would be good - not JPEG) to demonstrate what your specific issue is I should be able to tell you how to fix it.
Nice read @Andy
Thanks
Awesome info Andy!
Sorry, i think you misunderstood my point of view andy.
What i wanted to tell you is that how can you transform a bmd dng and a 5d dng with the same lut to a cineon colorspace?? When i use a rec709 colorspace in resolves raw tab the colors look awful. Isnt it possible to transfer the sensor difference to match the real bmd sensors first..? How can i use one lut for both source material (bmd and canon)? Thats what i can not understand cause the final result (after cineloc-c transformation will look different cause of the different sensor outputs? No?? Hmmm
@swinxx - I fully understand what you are saying but I think you have the wrong idea about raw images and colorspaces.
Cinelog-C does not transform the DNG itself. It transforms from the colorspace to which the DNG has been debayered. In Resolve we transform from BMD Film and BMD Film 4k.
The DNG has no colorspace of it's own but has color matrices that tell the raw reader (in this case DaVinci Resolve) how to map the camera's RGB pixel values to CIE XYZ colorspace. It is the BMD workspace that is the colorspace.
Put in simple terms - Resolve reads a DNG and performs a transform from Camera RGB values to CIE XYZ. It then transforms again to from CIE XYZ to BMD Film colorspace which is a very wide gamut colorspace with a logarithmic transfer function and defined white point - all in a 32bit floating point processing space.
This means it does not matter which camera generated the DNG file so long as the color matrices accurately map to CIE XYZ and this is the reason why I submitted the Adobe color matrices for all MLRV capable cameras to MLV developers a few weeks ago. These matrices have been developed under lab conditions - as have the ones in BM camera DNGs.
Differences in camera color are caused by RGB channel cross talk and noise. A very good sensor such as the Alexa's Alev III dual gain CMOS sensor has very good control over crosstalk and very high dynamic range - this produces a cleaner signal and more accurate color. The 5D mark III sensor is very good but has more crosstalk and noise meaning it does not produce color as accurately as the Alexa - not surprising considering the price difference! A low-end camera sensor usually has appalling crosstalk.
Anyway, what you want to know is if the 5D mark III can produce the same color as the BMD Cinema Camera - The short answer is that it already does in a raw workflow.
Cinelog-C does not support Resolve REC709 colorspace the luts only work from BMD Film and BMD Film 4K.
REC709 is a delivery/display colorspace (you can work in it of course if you are going from raw to deliverable without a digital intermediate like Cinelog-C). REC709 has around 6 F-stops of dynamic range with relatively small RGB chromaticity. This is no good for encoding a digital intermediate and is one of the reasons why log and wide gamut colorspaces exist.
I've had several people ask why can't you use REC709 with linear gamma - well, there is a big difference between scene linear (integer values mapping the whole signal within the containers bit depth) and Linear gamma. Linear gamma REC709 is still REC709 colorspace but has a gamma of 1.0 - It is a tiny colorspace compared to BMD Film and Cinelog-C.
Hope that explains it. I'm not sure I can explain it any easier :-\
BTW, if you want to match the color of 2 cameras Cinelog-C can help. Color matching is best done in Linear gamma and requires shots of a Macbeth colorchart filmed by both cameras in the same lighting conditions (ideally the same place, same time, same ISO, same lens etc).
Working in BMD Film colorspace - transform the raw images from BMD Film to Cinelog-C then from Cinelog-C to Scene Linear sRGB you can then use the Colormatch feature in Resolve - setting it to sRGB Linear gamma.
This will shift the colors as close as possible to the RGB values of the color chart patches. You can then apply Resolve's Linear to REC709 1D lut to put the image into REC709 display space. The gamut has already been transformed to REC709 primaries with a D65 white point by the Cinelog-C to Linear sRGB LUT.
Hello andy! Thx for your detailed description. As a creative user and not a technican, i do not understand everything from your latest posts but!! if it is like you describe, why the hell are visioncolor or other developers developing so many luts (for different cameras)?? If it is all the same in raw, it should be useless.. You only need one film emulation per filmstock..? Visioncolor provides 50different stocks for 20 differen cams (or even more) which sums up to more than 1000 luts!! And there are also canon ml raw luts..(especially for canon raw material). Shouldnt look they similar to the bmdfilm camare material when they are all processed with resolve bmdfilm or bmdfilm 4k..?
Sorry man but i cant get it right in my head.. The material look just different..
So when i apply a cinelog-c lut to material recorded with a bmd cam and compare it and make the same with my canon material the output must look the same?? ( i think my program has bugs then;))
Greets sw
Quote from: Andy600 on January 22, 2015, 12:34:41 PM
We are working on the EOS ACES IDTs ;)
Thats great to hear Andy!
@swinxx ACES IDTs are what you need to match the different camera sensors to the same color, then you would not need 1000 luts for all the different cameras.
You could then use the same gradung LUT on all the camera's because they are all converted to the ACES workflow.
Andy please correct me if i'm wrong about this :)
Hi Andy.
After two years lurking in the 50d raw forum thread, that then sadly got closed down with the Tragic Lantern issue/dispute, effectively killing the 50D thread here on the forum, I will finally get going with my 50D.
I highly appreciate all the hard work you have done both for 50D and with this Cinelog as well. I really want the best possible picture when it comes to noise, DR, upscaling and debayering (and anything else that I missed).
I could buy the Cinelog package just as a thanks for all your hard work, but of course I hope it to help me get the best out of my camera. And that is indeed my question. How can I post process my 50D raw(MLRaw) files in the best possible way for 1080P? If I would need to buy Cinelog before you answer I can of course do so. Since I have not chosen my work flow yet, please give me the one that you think is best, and I will get the programs necessary.
Best Regards, Tullen
@swinxx - The reason other devs produce so many luts is because they either 'creatively' produce them for each camera by color grading (not efficient and not accurate) or they include the colorspace transform in the LUT (not efficient but accurate - within limits).
We took a more scientific approach by giving the user access to transform to/from the colorspace as technical shaper luts in Resolve or OpenColorIO transforms in AE/PremierPro. This means we only need to produce one set of Looks and these looks are all created for a single colorspace - Cinelog-C.
Cinelog-C is a toolset for a raw (DNG based) pipeline and we haven't (yet) ventured into profiling baked-in looks such as Picture Styles, Cine-gamma, ProTune etc etc because all these are a moving target. It only takes the user to adjust a setting in-camera (contrast, color tone etc etc) to alter the output significantly and to maintain accuracy we would need to create input transforms to counter every possible combination of settings - this would be infinite when you think of all the cameras our there.
The Cinelog-C OpenColorIO transforms can work in reverse on baked log footage from the Alexa, Amira, F5, F55, C300, C500 etc simply because we know the exact colorspace and log curve of each of those cameras. If you have even read a professional camera's manual you will note that the manufacturer explicitly states that the user should not alter contrast, saturation etc and should expose in a specific way when shooting anything with the camera's log profile. They don't want the user to affect the very technical color science that has been developed to capture and compress the full signal into a much smaller container - usually a ProRes file.
Cinelog-C is based entirely on open standards so that in can be used in a professional workflow. I know of 2 big budget movies currently in production where Cinelog-C is being used for DI because the DITs themselves are 100% confident in how it works and what it does - one of those films has several 5D mark III's (shooting ML raw video) in use alongside 2 ARRI Alexa's.
As for other LUT vendors and how they do things, well that's not for me to say. I know only 2 other companies that take every effort to ensure accuracy in their LUT/Look products and I know several that make claims that simply don't hold up under scrutiny.
@Lars - correct but ACES's strength is also a draw back because it conforms every camera to a common look - ACES is great for camera matching (if the IDT's are accurate) and for VFX heavy pipelines but it can also dumb-down some of the aesthetics that make a camera like the Alexa unique.
ARRI are the only manufacturer so far to have followed ACES guidelines to the letter. It makes you wonder why Sony, Canon, RED etc don't. :-\
@Tullen
Up-scaling - Resolve
Debayer - ACR has the edge but Resolve is still excellent.
Noise reduction - Neat Video
Speed - Resolve
Color grading - Resolve
If time isn't an issue then ACR + After Effects will produce the best image but Resolve is amazingly versatile.
re: 50D - I can't take credit for anything ML related.
Thanks Andy.
I guess Resolve sounds like a good option since it is also free, even though debayering of course is important. Would you say it is as good editing software as Premier Pro? As I have understood ACR is very powerful to recover details in the images, would it make sense to use ACR for debayer and highligt rec etc. and then continue in resolve? Would it be best to stay with the raw files the whole way or would you recommend DNxHD? I also don't see you mentioning Cinelog in this workflow. Maybe you think that was obvious, but would be great to hear how to integrate it in the work flow proposed.
Well, you where very active in the 50D thread, supportive and always fast with a knowledge answer, so even if you did not work on the build except building it your contribution was very much appreciated.
@Tullen - I'm not an editor but Resolve's editing capability is pretty good if you don't have Premier, FCPX, Avid etc
A start to finish raw workflow is technically the most versatile but it's also very processor intensive (i.e. realtime debayering) and really requires a good RAID setup to handle the data flow. In reality it makes much more sense (economically and timewise) to develop high quality 10 or 12bit log masters in ProRes or DNxHD from the raw footage because these are much smaller file sizes in comparison to the raw source material and there is no debayering required for playback - You can edit/playback in realtime and use more plugins, luts etc even on a modest machine - that's where Cinelog-C comes in. We detail some of the benefits on the website.
The other benefit is Cinelog-C colorspace. We provide a common set of REC709 and graded, filmic look luts (with more to come) that are specifically developed to work with Cinelog-C footage. A Cinelog-C ProRes intermediate is basically the same as a Log-C ProRes intermediate that you would get from the Alexa and Amira cameras but Cinelog-C has a slightly different log curve that's more suitable for the dynamic range of Canon DSLR's, BMD cameras and a few others - plus it's the same transfer function (Cineon) used in film-to-digital and digital-to-film pipelines - and because you are generating the ProRes or DNxHD file in post from the raw data (as opposed to baking it in-camera) you can select the quality, bit depth and codec of your choice plus correct white balance and exposure if needed. A Cinelog-C encoded 4:4:4 DNxHD or ProRes file can handle some serious/extreme color grading and will look the same as if it was graded raw.
@ Andy
As I said, I can go either way with what program to use, whatever gives me the best result. Obviously the biggest issue right now will be my skill, but if I am to learn I rather learn the best way straight away. I do however understand that your advice is regarding the picture quality and not how good the programs are from a editing point of view. I have a i7 2700k at 4.5 GHz (effectively 8 cores), only 8 gig of ram, Geforce 670GTX and SSD hardrives for editing. Not in raid though, maybe something to plan for the future.
I will film a lot of fire art performance (at night with the fire as main light source), if that matters. But of course, if I get as good result with a faster and lighter Cinelog-C DNxHD work flow, I see no point in staying in Raw the whole way.
When I read on your website the process looks a bit different for Cinelog and Resolve compared to Cinelog and ACR. My impression is that the ACR one is more advanced and will give you better result. Is this correct or am I interpreting it wrong?
@Tullen - re: highlight recovery in ACR and Resolve
As I understand it, ACR attempts to rebuild some spectral highlight information (ultra brights) that may be missing in 1 or 2 channels (RGB) by copying/averaging/borrowing information from a channel that does have information.
Resolve Highlight recovery simply adds a shoulder to the uppermost part of the log curve and adds linear gain above the shoulder to increase perceived brightness and make it look more lifelike. It's basically a contrast function limited to the upper part of the signal.
@Tulen - Fire Art at night - I take it you like a challenge then ;D
If there is little or no ambient light you're looking at 15+ f-stops of scene dynamic range so you'll need to decided about what to clip when shooting with the 50D's ~10 F-stops DR. I suggest shooting at a minimum of 800ISO (the max you can really go to on the 50D) and expose for the fire artist - use some lighting or bounce if possible or your shadows will be mush.
The ACR and Resolve versions of Cinelog-C use different techniques to achieve the same end result. Technically speaking, the OCIO transforms that come with the ACR version are more accurate because they don't use a 3D lut component for the linear colorspace transform (they use RGB matrices instead) but they are visually no different. 3D luts always introduce tiny mathematical rounding errors but you wont see them in the image - It's the same for any 3D Lut format regardless of the cube size and not something to worry about.
For anyone that's interested in learning more about colorspaces, luts, log vs linear, OpenColorIO etc I suggest reading this: http://github.com/jeremyselan/cinematiccolor/raw/master/ves/Cinematic_Color_VES.pdf
(http://github.com/jeremyselan/cinematiccolor/raw/master/ves/Cinematic_Color_VES.pdf)
:)
@Tullen
If you want to retain maximum quality and still get real time playback when editing.
I found that using proxies is the way to go.
step by step:
1. MLV to Cdng (Raw2cdng)
2. Smart import script for AE (do a search on the forum) Will make a composition for each image sequence and add it to render queue (set default render format before you do this)
3. White balance and apply Cinelog or Visionlog in ACR (Do this to avoid having to go back again after editing to apply the Cine or Visionlog)
4. Render all clips to h264 - 5 mbits or lower if you feel so. (Remember to keep same file names/reel names of your proxies and image sequences)
5. add proxies to Premiere and make a Track named 'proxies' just to keep things separated
6. Add the AE compositions to a track above the proxies (preferrably name the track RAW) and Group each Raw and proxy clip together
7. Make the RAW track invisible so that you only cut the Proxies and if you've correctly grouped the RAW and Proxies's without first making any cut to either one, then the cuts you do to the proxies will be doing the same to the RAW footage. You will basically cut and playback RAW in realtime on a very modest computer.
8. Go back to AE and colour grade add vfx or whatever you feel like, because the AE composition is grouped with the proxies, the lenghts will match and all you have to do is disable the Proxy Track and enable the RAW track and voila! You are ready to render a full quality image out of PP
Important: Make sure the compositions are exactly the lenght of each DNG sequence before rendering to proxy or else your footage wont add up when you group them and you will have black spots on the timeline.
Also because you've added Cinelog or Visionlog to your footage before rendering, the proxies are flat and very unimaginative to edit. Just to help you better get a feel when editing, I would apply auto contrast or just some easy "look" with high contrast to better give a feel for what you are doing. Don't start colour correcting the proxies, it serves no purpose at all
Note: I wrote this completely out of memory, I haven't had a computer for more than a month now as mine suffered some horrible electric meltdown :( So maybe I missed a step on how I usually go by my workflow, but it has worked wonderful for me, retaining all information because of no loss in conversion, from start to finish.
Sorry for taking this a bit too much off topic.
@Kharak - I agree to some of what you say but proxy workflows are really only useful these days if your working on a low powered laptop or in UHD/4k on a low spec computer.
A ProRes or DNxHD log intermediate removes the need for proxies. It is efficient, editable and still allows scope for color grading. I know some still use proxies but it overly complicates a workflow more than is needed. If you have properly white balanced your footage and corrected any exposure offset there is no point in staying in the raw domain because all you are doing is deferring debayer.
A ProRes XQ or DNxHD 1:1 file has all the wiggle room you need - even for extreme grading and VFX. The difference between the raw and ProRes graded output is tiny and, unless you are going to DCDM you will likely end up delivering in 8-bit H.264 anyway.
yes Prores and DNxHD are more than enough in almost all cases.
But for personal projects I like being able to jump back in to ACR and tweak highlights and shadows if I see so fit on a later bases (which I pretty much always end up doing). But if I am handing footage over to someone else to work on, I give them DNxHD or prores files. CDNG is in most cases too big a load, especially if they are not used to working with it.
But for my previous tutorial, for DNxHD/prores follow the steps to step 4. and instead of H264, set it to DNxHD/Prores and you are good to go without the hassle of proxy ;)
@Kharak - Please tell me you're not using the highlight and shadow recovery controls in ACR on any important/commercial projects :o
I had a client last year who did a short broadcast piece for the BBC (filmed in ML Raw) and it failed the Harding FPA test which tests for flicker, flashing, patterning that can cause epilepsy - It was very subtle but we eventually discovered it was the dynamic highlight and shadow recovery in ACR that was causing the flickering and that's why we say do not use those controls for video work.
@andy
Yes I do fiddle with highlight and Shadow slides in ACR even after applying Visionlog, I mentioned this to you few pages back when I was asking about how much shadow recovery Cinelog had vs visionlog and btw I could see your Cinelog had more shadow recovery but more saturation (no biggey concerning the saturation from my part). I have yet to buy Cinelog C because as stated above, my computer had a mental breakdown and I've been without a workstation for more than a month now. But I will be sure to invest in Cinelog C as soon as I get my hands on a new computer, most likely next week sometime.
First of, increasing shadow recovery and highlight recovery in ACR does not work for every scene, I am very aware of the flickering that ACR can induce as it processes each individual frame as an independent photo.. But I have also learned that ACR focuses its adjustments based on the brightest highlight in a scene. So that in many scenes you can actually increase the shadow slider without introducing flicker. You introduce noise by doing this, but its nothing I haven't been able to fix/hide with noise reduction and colour grading and thereby increasing the dynamic range beyond what VisionLog was able to offer. Yes in cases I have been forced to keep all sliders on 0 (except exposure) because it would introduce flicker because of highlights changing or being blocked.
Scenario:
You are shooting a talent, you set up the scene and lets say there is a small specular highlight or just some lamp in the background (our brightest spot in the scene or bright enough to possibly cause flicker). As long as the talent or whatever else might be going on in the scene does not block or "provoke" the Highlight throughout the shot, you can pull and push highlight/shadows as much as you want without it causing any flickering, but sometimes I still get minimal flicker, but the flickering will be so minimal that it will fall natural to the scene and without the audience noticing. When I mean minimal, I mean not actual flicker, but supple change
Its trial and error in most cases.. But 90% of the time I try and pull shadows up in ACR and see if I can get away with it and for the most part, I do. As said before, I always push shadows cause I feel that VisionLog does not do a good enough in that part.
You explained the science behind the highlight recovery of ACR vs Resolve a few posts back, I didn't have the explanation in mind, but have all the time stated the same that ACR's highlight recovery is superior to Davinci.
@Kharak , +1 on your post. I agree with you on the usage of ACR in A.E. As I also use hi-light & shadow recovery.
Without any problems with flicking , I do not use Cinelog C or any Luts or transforms to log, just flat out the image
and tone curve to legal Video Colors. But I export to the new ProRes 4444XQ which is reported to be linear , (I'm still trying to confirm this) .
My two Cents :D
+1 @Kharak's post regarding AE... To be able to use ACR is a no brainer. Gotta love their HL & Shadows recovery.
Even works well with Cinelog -- still trying to get the hang of the workflow though In order to get the look I want!
Thanks again @Andy600 for keeping us all well informed and up to date.
+100 reddeercity.
ACR aware of not to flicker as long, as it run in AE, not LR or Photoshop.
I'm on windows, so i export to tiff sequence and encode to Prores with ffmpeg.
Guys - If you're not seeing flicker then great! - but it can and does happen and is a pain to remove later. It usually occurs when a bright object enters the scene. It can be very subtle but I have seen more extreme flickering that looks a little like auto-exposure or AGC. It can be less noticeable on a computer monitor but much more visible on a modern Plasma or OLED display with a higher contrast ratio and, if you do any work for a reputable broadcaster it cause your work to fail the Harding test and will not get broadcast. I know most users here do not produce for broadcast but it's something to bear in mind if you ever do.
Cinelog is for a professional workflow and you should follow the same guidelines that apply to all in-camera log profiles i.e. Log-C, S-Log, Canon Log, REDLogFilm in that you should not mess with the curve at this early stage (The only exception is if you are going from raw to a deliverable output - i.e. not creating a log master).
Moving the Highlight and Shadow sliders in ACR will introduce an S-Curve to the log curve and you will move the measurable black point, white point and 18% gray points. ACR does not have the tools to tell you where you have moved them to.
The V3.0 profiles in ACR do a very specific job - they make it possible for ACR to pass up to 13.5 F-stops of scene linear (HDR) information to the host (After Effects, Premier, Photoshop) using a well defined log curve that can later be remapped to exact scene linear values - VFX artists and colorists will understand the importance of this.
Ideally you could debayer and transfer scene linear code values (not to be confused with Linear gamma) but ACR has a bottleneck. It does not use input-to-output floating point processing. It's limited to 8 or 16bit output and HDR values extend beyond what ACR can transfer without curve manipulation (the adjustments are not internally measurable) and so data outside of ACR's output range gets truncated - this is another reason for the log curve. Another thing to remember is that ACR to After Effects only transfers sRGB primaries.
When I use HDR in the above description I am not talking about HDR in the sense of a look. HDR in this case simply means dynamic range that extends beyond the range of what can be transferred or displayed.
If you don't alter the log curve in ACR you effectively have a Cineon log representation of scene linear vales in ACR. Add the Cineon converter plugin to this with the settings: log to linear, white level 685, black level 95 and gamma 2.39 and you have a full range REC709 signal (well, rec709 has a tiny linear portion at the foot of the signal but it's close enough). Change the gamma to 1.0 and you have linear gamma etc etc. Add Cinelog-C to Scene Linear LUT and you will see all your superbright values extending beyond normalized 0.0 - 1.0 output (but you must use 32bit processing in AE to see this). Also, the exposure plugin in AE will behave!
Part of what I'm trying to do here is to make it possible for a professional DI workflow (for producing log masters from your raw images) in a tool that was not specifically designed for that purpose - and, at the same time, help you understand a little of the terminology and practices of professional DITs and colorists so that if you ever work with them you will know a bit of their language. It's not just about marketing our products.
If you don't use Cinelog that's fine too. I hope the information is useful :)
Andy,
I'm using a workflow to adjust my files in photoshop and the results are great.
I'll tell you the steps and please let me know if I'm doing it right ?
- I shoot the canon 5dmk3 and push the rate button to set a white balance measure. ( while pointing at a gray card )
- I set the exposure using the ML spot meter to check and expose as much as possible to the right.
1. First I convert the MLV to DNG with MLVFS. ( with bad pixel correction on and stripe correction on )
2. In Photoshop I import the DNG in ACR
3. I change here the lens corrections ( remove chromatic aberrations )
4. Use cinelog v3.
5. Sharpening in ACR at 0
6. I use native resolution 1920x1080 or I use 200% in ACR to get 3840 x2160
7. I use 16 bit file
8. I use srgb ( I'm wondering if I should use pro photo rgb or color match rgb? )
9. adjust white balance if needed
10. adjust exposure of needed
11. The file is now opened in photoshop as smart layer so I can always go back to adjust if needed.
12. Apply adjustment layer : Color lookup
13. Select Cinelog v3 to cinelog-C.cube
14. Make another Color lookup adjustment layer on top of the previous one
15. In this Color lookup layer I choose the Look I like, for example:
16. [CLF] Kodak Vision Premier 2393 grade 05.
17. Use sharpening if needed, this can be in the ACR, or on the DNG smart layer with a sharpening plugin.
18. Use noise reduction if needed, again on the smart layer under the Color lookup layers.
19 Export to pro res or still from photoshop.
20. This seems like many steps for a still image but this can all be automated when setup properly.
21 I know the same could be done in after effects and would probably look the same or better, but I just like to experiment with looks in photoshop.
22. I'm using this workflow also for full resolution stils from the 5D, ( 22 megapixel ) and it gives me a lot of control over the colors I get from my still pictures,
One more question do you also have .cube lut for Cinelog to BMCC film? I have a couple of looks for BMCC and would like to use them on the cinelog files.
Hi Lars,
Yes, that workflow will work fine. The ACR version of Cinelog-C is built to work in a REC709 workspace (i.e. it's why we say to choose the REC709 workspace in AE project settings). REC709 shares the primaries of sRGB so setting ACR to sRGB will produce the correct colors. The difference between sRGB and REC709 is the transfer curve and gamma. sRGB is 2.2 gamma and REC709 can be anywhere between 1.9 and 2.4 depending on the display device. It won't make much difference to work in sRGB. ProPhoto has a different white point and lower gamma than REC709 and sRGB so it's not very useful for video work - there is a transform to/from ProPhoto colorspace in the OCIO config though :)
re: a Cinelog-C to BMD Film lut for Photoshop, AE and Premier Pro. The transfer functions are incompatible because BMD Film has less DR than Cinelog-C and Cineon. Technically it will clip the output but should still have enough DR for EOS cameras.
You can actually generate your own transform LUTs using the OpenColorIO plugin in AE or PP. If you want to go straight to BMD Film without transforming to/from Cinelog-C just select Cinelog V3.0 as the input space and BMD Film as the output space then click export. I think a 3DL format lut will work in Photoshop but I haven't tried it yet.
For BMD Film it would be better to make the Photoshop workspace BMD Film colorspace using an ICC profile. We need to generate this and it's on the list of things we plan to do.
Andy, will Cinelog have a presence at NAB?
@Pyriphlegethon - Sadly not this year. NAB is a huge expense for very small companies like Cinelog, especially as we are based in Europe. If this year goes according to plan we should be at NAB 2016. I'm not sure if we'll be exhibiting but I should be there.
IBC ?
@Andy600 BSC Expo Pinewood? ;)
We're too late for BSC this year but IBC is a possibility. I certainly need to get out more ;D
Hey Andy,
Are there are guides or tutorial videos available yet?
Quote from: rtwomey on February 03, 2015, 04:49:31 AM
Hey Andy,
Are there are guides or tutorial videos available yet?
Did you check the site or are you not a member yet?
@dubz
I've been a member for a while, checked the site but couldn't see them. Where abouts are they?
Update: I wasn't logged in.... ;D
Hey @rtwomey :)
The basic user guides are in the LUT Bank (login on the website). I'm working on the first tutorials but I can't give an ETA just yet.
Hey Andy, does the latest DaVinci Resolve 11 update affect Cinelog in any (bad kind of) way? The changes according to Blackmagic seem to be focused on how Cinema DNG files are read. Haven't tried it out myself, just wonder if to update or not in regards of my Cinelog workflow.
In other news Red Giant has released (http://www.redgiant.com/products/magic-bullet-suite/) a whole new version of Magic Bullet and Colorista - they both work within FCPX now. Since the completely reworked Magic Bullet III has full support for LOG footage with dedicated tools and filters, this might be a good match for everybody who wants to grade Cinelog footage in FCPX & Co.! Still looking forward to whatever ColorGradingCentral is working on with the upcoming Color Finale (http://coming.colorgradingcentral.com/colorfinale/) for FCPX. Just in case anybody here is looking for a solution like this to go on working with Cinelog files outside of Resolve. :)
@DanHaag - I'm putting Resolve 11.2 through it's paces atm. There's no apparent difference to previous versions. The Cinema DNG tweaks are (as I understand) aimed at Black Magic cameras. There is a tone curve improvement for debayering DNGs to REC709 but that's only useful if you're grading raw. The softclip function might help with clipped footage but mostly, the other changes have no noticeable affect on ML DNG or other raw files. DNxHR is nice for Windows users - A step up from DNxHD (although it's only .mxf afaik). BMD film colorspace hasn't altered in any way so we don't need to change anything in Cinelog-C.
re: Magic Bullet - Yes, looks like a nice upgrade. The Film plugin looks good but having inputs described as video, flat and log mean it's using a generic input colorspace (most likely rec709 primaries). Still, it should work great with Cinelog and it's good to see they implemented both the negative (probably with reversal) and print emulations. I would suggest trying it with the Cinelog-C to Cinelog-C Film Matrix or Cinelog-C to Cineon sRGB transforms. If MB's log profile is Cineon (as I suspect it is because of the print emulation part) it will be bang on the money for Cinelog :)
I'm not planning to get MB suite, mainly because I use Resolve and was never a fan of MB Looks (too extreme), so if anyone does get it I'd be interested to hear how MB and Cinelog work together.
Holy s***.
Is it just me or did the price double for us euro customers? I was sitting on this, not purchasing the bundle @ 43 euro, now apparently it's 73. Am I missing something?
Cinelog-C is a much more substantial product than previous versions and it's expanding. Unfortunately, we also had to contend with new EU VAT laws that were introduced on January 1st which make all digital products sold in EU countries liable for VAT regardless of where the supplier is based. We decided not to pass on the VAT cost to EU customers so in effect we are paying whatever your local VAT rate is to the EU (this can be up to 27%). We also had a 2 week launch sale. EU customers saved around 40% when the VAT was factored in.
Regardless of the prices: It is definitely worth every dime on this remarkable product from @Andy600, no joke...
Yes, with no doubt, it worth any money !!!
-
Hi Andy,
Just purchased Cinelog-C for Resolve. Is there any Rec 709 to Cinelog-C LUT?
@jtvision - A display space to log space transfer would likely clip a significant amount of information i.e. if your image is in REC709 it may already be clipped and we don't know the exact contrast/gamma curve used unless it's a transfer function. Why do you need this? Is it for REC709 footage or to use with REC709 colorspace in Resolve?
I have video files exported to DNxHD, dngs and raw files deleted. I want to bring them back to log and re-grade or apply/try different LUTs.
@jtvision - That would be a bit tricky because anything that was done previously to alter the gamma curve, saturation, white point etc will seriously affect things. I can build you a lut using the REC709 transfer function to target Cinelog-C but I doubt it will work well. It should allow you to use our film look luts but I can't predict the results because your video files will be abstract. Can you email me?
Hi Andy,
I've tried to bring them back to log using visionlog lut, which is giving me pretty good results. I thought, if you already have something like that, I would give a try since I wanted to try LUTs from Cinelog LUT Bank.
@jtvision - Can you email me?
It's no problem to build a lut to transform from REC709 colorspace to Cinelog-C colorspace but if your REC709 image has had any work done to it you may have clipping and hue issues using our film luts. I've built the lut for you to try already.
Hi Andy,
Thank you very much for REC 709 to Cinelog C LUT!!! I did a quick test already and loving the results. Rec 709 to Cinelog C is giving flatter image than VisionLog which is exactly what I needed.
You definitely need to include this into LUT Bank. This would be a big help to match footages from different sources as well whether RAW or not.
And what a customer service! Worth every dollar spent!
@jtvision - You're welcome! :)
I'll add this to the LUT bank shortly along with the input transforms (to Cinelog-C colorspace) for Technicolor Cinestyle, GoPro ProTune Flat and ProLost Flat profiles that we've been working on.
Great news @Andy600! [emoji106]
Starving for GoPro Protune, Andy! 8)
Hey Andy. The Resolve guides are great. I just have one last piece of the workflow I need to figure out. I do most of my CC with FilmConvert and Colorista in Premiere Pro. I'm just wondering if you'd recommend adding a Cinelog C to Alexa Log LUT in Resolve to bake it into the ProRes files or add the LUT in Premiere. I ask because I want to use the Alexa setting in FilmConvert and have the option to use all the Alexa LUTs available. I'd like to be in a position to dump my MLV files for the majority of what I shoot so I want the best ProRes masters possible.
@rtwomey - it depends on a couple of things really.
Cinelog-C and Alexa Log-C are essentially the same colorspace but with slightly different log curves (although in practice they are still compatible with a little manipulation of the black and white points). Log-C holds more dynamic range but it's also more compressed - a little too compressed and a waste of code values if used with MLV. Cinelog-C is print density Cineon log which has more than enough DR for MLV plus it's is more of a standard when it comes to using other film luts and presets intended for Cineon.
The Cinelog-C to 'other colorspaces' luts in the Resolve version are high precision shaper luts (i.e. they have a 1D and a 3D component) and can't be read by anything in Adobe software so unless you have the bundle version (with OCIO) you could render your log masters using both the BMD Film to Cinelog-C and Cinelog-C to Alexa Log-C Wide Gamut luts baked-in in order to use the exact FilmConvert Pro workflow you describe - BUT see my final comment below.
If you have the bundle version you can render to any of the Cinelog-C colorspace options in Resolve because there are input transforms for each of them included in the OCIO plugin configuration.
Alternatively, If you don't have the bundle version, you could export your log masters in Cinelog-C colorspace first then, as a separate job, re-export the Cinelog-C to Alexa Log-C Wide Gamut shaper lut to make a Premier compatible 33x cube lut. i.e. load the Cinelog-C to Alexa Log-C Wide gamut lut on a node in Resolve (without any other luts in nodes or the LUT panel) and then export it to create a new lut - however, you will lose a lot of precision and be reliant on lut interpolation in Premier (it's ok but not ideal) - this is why normal 3D cube luts are not recommended for precision log transforms.
In practice, FilmConvert Pro works fine with Cinelog-C footage (when FilmConvert Pro is set to Alexa Log-C input) as only the tone curve is affected. It's a happy medium for MLV and will give you the same color (just play with the contrast a little).
So basically, I would recommend rendering Cinelog-C Log masters from Resolve for your described FilmConvert Pro workflow:)
Great reply Andy, thanks. I didn't fully understand the middle part but the last paragraph is what I was looking for! ;)
Hello. I have read the entire thread and have been following this product for a long time. I am about to have a magic lantern raw video graded by a colourist (in a few hours!). He will be working directly on the DNG files in Resolve. Is there any tangible advantage in having him do the grade through a CINELOG input LUT? If so, what is it exactly?
Many thanks! I look forward to hearing from you.
@andrewfox - Did you email me under another name? If so, I just emailed back :)
if not, here's what i wrote:
Your colorist should be ok with MLV but there is a gotcha. The color matrices that get embedded by most mlv-to-dng apps are not very accurate and this can lead to headaches when doing the initial white balance and primary grade. Currently only raw2cdng and MLVFS embed accurate color and forward matrices. These are needed to tell resolve how to transform from camera RGB values to CIE XYZ then on to BMD Film primaries.
The main benefits of Cinelog-C over BMD Film is that we transform the 'unpublished' BMD Film colorspace to a published colorspace (Alexa Wide Gamut RGB) with a Cineon log curve that can be easily transformed to any other colorspace and is more compatible with print luts that require print density input. We do this using very high precision shaper luts which are both 1D (for the log transfer) and 3D (for color transform). If you colorist has a preference for say Log-C from the Alexa you can transform Cinelog-C to Alexa Log-C (with or without the Film Matrix) and this will give the colorist something more familiar to work with. The luts can be used to good effect in a raw-to-deliverable pipeline. I would suggest talking to your colorist to see what they prefer and feel free to pass on my details if they want to know more about Cinelog-C.
If you are doing a raw-to-deliverable grade it's likely you will need to use a proxy workflow in order to edit the footage outside of Resolve. This involves relinking files and a can add more time to the workflow. By creating a log master such as ProRes XQ in Cinelog-C colorspace you don't need proxies. You can edit and grade the log masters. This will also save time and processing power as the debayering has already been done plus the file sizes become much more portable in comparison to raw. The only draw back is that your exposure and white balance will be baked-in so it's important to get this right. Beyond this there is no visible difference in final output between grading with the raw material verses the ProRes file.
The other big benefit Cinelog-C is that we bridge the gap to other commercial lut packs and app presets that are developed for other cameras/colorspace (i.e. Koji, VisionColor, Film Convert Pro etc) plus there is the Cinelog LUT Bank where you will find many high quality graded print look luts and more technical display space transforms. We are also continually developing Cinelog-C and will soon include input transforms for baked camera profiles such as GoPro Protune, Prolost Flat, Technicolor Cinestyle etc.
Hi Andy, yes it was me, I had not received your reply yet before posting. Thanks. It all makes a lot of sense. Being on here too, it will hopefully help other users as well.
... It definitely DOES help and that's the beauty of this remarkable community and it's forum created by @a1ex & along w the help of others!
Good read so far guys and thanks for the follow-up's as always @Andy600.
@Andy600
I tried to take my 5D3 raw footage back to Rec.709 in the most direct and faithful way possible for a camera comparison, and I used BMDFilm > BMDFilm to CineLog-C > CineLog-C to Rec.709. But this really doesn't look right to me:
https://vimeo.com/119093979
PW: cine
Any suggestions?
@QuickHitRecord - There is no definitive REC709 look, only the many variations that camera manufacturers provide to fit the data into the display space in a way they feel looks pleasing - but nearly always requiring some work. This is why ARRI Rec 709 looks different to Sony LC709 etc. The Cinelog-C to REC709 luts (legal and full range) both remap Alexa Wide Gamut RGB to REC709 primaries and are based on the Rec709 transfer characteristics (actually we used BT.1886 ~2.4 gamma) which exceeds the capabilities of most displays - i.e. you still need to bring down the highlights and lift shadows to avoid clipping.
The other Cinelog REC709 luts have an additional S-curve designed to do this. You could even try Sony, ARRI or Canon Rec709 luts by transforming from Cinelog-C to the relevant colorspace (Canon log, Slog etc).
The Cinelog Rec709 luts (apart from the DSLR look Rec709 luts) are simple matrix transforms and transfer functions baked into luts. They don't manipulate color hues independently (neither do most manufacturer REC709 luts) and they are totally neutral in that, when you apply the transforms to a test chart, gray values stay equal for RGB channels from black to white and color values remap to exactly where they should be.
We don't include a lut to do this but I can easily build one that transforms from BMD Film to Cinelog-C to Resolve REC709 that replicates the look as if you had debayered to Resolve's REC709 colorspace - if you want. It won't be pretty but you'll see how accurate the Cinelog-C luts are.
If anything I would say your Cinelog-C to REC709 footage is a little warmer (white balance) and has more contrast and richer color. The FS7 looks brittle in comparison and the C100, although better color, looks a bit lacking in something. I prefer warmer skin tones myself but there is nothing in the Cinelog-C luts that enhance warmth - they are very neutral. If you are trying to camera match I would suggest transforming everything (all shots) to scene linear and use the color match function, then use resolves linear to REC709 lut or use ACES.
Incidentally, what did you use to extract the MLVs? and did you manipulate the white balance/tint settings or use As Shot values?
I just noticed on your Vimeo write-up that you specify Cinelog-C to REC709 Monitor Transform lut?
Andy, as always I appreciate the quick and detailed response. I get frustrated with CineLog sometimes because I know that I am not using it correctly, and then I try to follow your advice and end up getting weird results like this:
(http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/ScreenShot2015-02-11at95349PM_zps76d40d81.png)
Starting in BMD Film color space (not 4K; highlight recovery on)
First node: BMD Film to CineLog-C LUT
Second node: CineLog-C to ACES LUT
Third node: Linear to Rec.709 LUT
I did use a gray card for color balance in there somewhere using the Camera Raw Clip Decoder Settings... should this be taking place in a certain node?
My MLVs are going through RawMagic. I remember reading your recommendations for some of the other programs because they preserve the color temperature camera metadata, but the last time I checked, they don't sync up audio the way that RawMagic does. I also have MLRawViewer, but I got some weird artifacts around burned highlights so I stopped using it. Is this where the disconnect is?
Finally, I did use a display LUT to transform the CineLog-C footage to Rec.709 because it was the only place that I could find that transformation LUT. I also tried it with CineLog-C to CineLog Universal Film Rec.709 (both FULL and LEGAL) and got pleasing, but very saturated and surreal colors.
I can sometimes get just as frustrated as well. Actually I am perplexed regarding the fact that you prefer RAWMagic over MLVFS (or other decent converters)?
I feel you about MLRV's weird artifacts around the burned HL.
I really try hard to stick with the latest MLVFS (unfortunately DR 11 just lags so bad on playback in my 2012 Mac Mini)
I'll keep trying though... thanks @Andy600 for keeping us magically motivated to continue our eagerness to get this resolved regardless!
Aren't raw2cdng and MLrawViewer the only converters now that use the accurate Colour matrices to work with Cinelog-C ?
Try converting with RAW2CDNG and see if you get the same results.
@QuickHitRecord - You will get problems using that series of luts because you are transforming to ACES primaries but still viewing on a monitor that is, I presume, sRGB or REC709 (both sRGB and REC709 use the same primaries known as chromaticity).
The boundary of ACES colorspace is far bigger than any display can reproduce and goes beyond even what is perceptible to the human eye. By transferring the gamma from Linear to REC709 you are shifting the image into a display gamma more suitable for your monitor but the primaries are still ACES and, in this instance (going from sRGB to ACES), you will get very weird colors.
The chromaticity of a colorspace can be defined simply enough but the influence of light and many other factors dictate how hue, saturation and brightness (in 3 dimensions) are displayed and it's not easy to simplify (I can't even begin to do that here) or visualize - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planckian_locus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planckian_locus). It's color science - 'science' being the operative word.
re: luts. It's difficult to see the technical influence of a lut on color and gamma when looking at a shot/scene but you can get a better idea by looking at it's influence on a chart. Resolve has several built-in charts but you can't apply luts to them directly - you can though export them though ;) I've exported 3 of the most useful ones and transformed them from linear RGB to Cinelog-C colorspace.
The reason I have pre-transformed them to Cinelog-C is because all the Cinelog-C viewing luts (i.e. REC709, Film looks etc) and most of the Cinelog-C colorspace transform luts are defined for an image that is already in Cinelog-C colorspace. If you apply any of these luts to the charts and pull up the Resolve scopes you will get a better idea of how they affect color (limited to the scopes 2 dimensions) and be able to see the gamma or log curve transformation curves. https://bitbucket.org/andy600/andy50d2/downloads/Cinelog-C_Resolve_Charts.zip (https://bitbucket.org/andy600/andy50d2/downloads/Cinelog-C_Resolve_Charts.zip)
re: RAWMagic - apart from not being supported here, it only embeds a single illuminant matrix (ok, 2 but the second is a duplicate). This will affect color in resolve. If you accurately white balanced when shooting it will not affect things but if you didn't and you have left WB to post you will certainly need a greycard or whitecard to get anywhere close to neutral. White balance nearly always requires a little tweaking in post but it helps if the color matrices are well defined (for 2 different illuminants). This helps Resolve white balance interpolate better between color temperatures and should also let you use the preset white balance settings as a starting point (the Magenta/Green offset you need is always displayed in the camera raw panel).
As for saturation. This is personal taste. Canon DSLR matrices push saturation a little further than cinema cameras but you can always reduce saturation if you prefer. The saturation and colorboost controls in Resolve do a good job but for a fully uniform reduction (or increase) in RGB levels I would suggest adding a node before the output lut (REC709 or Film look) and pulling down the Red, green and Blue levels to 0 then use the key page to increase to level of saturation you want. For more sat you would push up the RGB levels and decrease the amount using the key.
Incidentally, it might be confusing to some that a wide gamut colorspace looks desaturated - the logic being that some people think of a colorspace only in terms of saturation. A wide gamut colorspace is not actually desaturated and the lower saturation is due to the affect of viewing a wider gamut image on an sRGB monitor.
Thanks again for a thorough explanation. Point well taken on the ACES color space not looking so great on my limited-spectrum iMac monitor. I will download those charts and have a play after work.
Just to clarify, is MLVFS a good alternative to RawMagic when it comes to working with Cinelog (turns out that the newer version embeds audio)? Taking into account the latest developments, could you perhaps provide a list of 'Recommended' vs 'Not Recommended' MLV conversion apps for Cinelog users?
@Kharak - Yes, but accurate is perhaps not the best word (that's my fault for using it). The original ML raw color matrix (in raw2dng) was based on the 5D Mark III color matrix but was used for all sensors - the next generation do use a sensor specific matrix but only for a single illuminant. The latest ones (in raw2cdng and MLVFS) are dual illuminant matrices for the various EOS sensors. There is probably more work to be done regarding matrices.
@QuickHitRecord - If you work in Resolve you should really consider getting another monitor (preferably a good one that can be calibrated) and something like the Blackmagic Decklink Mini Monitor to run it. The internal Resolve monitor window is rudimentary and can't be calibrated. If you can only use this you should always double check everything on the scopes - actually it's always worth keeping an eye on the scopes anyway.
re: converters: http://www.cinelogdcp.com/news-updates/2015/1/27/important-information-for-magic-lantern-users (http://www.cinelogdcp.com/news-updates/2015/1/27/important-information-for-magic-lantern-users) :)
BTW, if you do need to put you image into Linear with sRGB primaries there is a lut in the Cinelog-C pack that will do it. The transfer function is the same as the Cinelog-C to ACES lut but the primaries are transformed to sRGB/REC709. Resolve's linear to REC709 lut will then work ok because it's 1D and does not alter the primaries - but this is effectively like going from Cinelog-C to REC709 anyway.
I went back and replaced my RawMagic DNG folders with the MLVFS mounts, and that seemed to help. I followed the suggested Cinelog workflow, creating color-balanced ProResHQ files and then bringing them back into Resolve for a grade. I feel better about these colors (I did push the hue on the ML raw footage to more closely match the other footage; the color differences are too jarring otherwise):
https://vimeo.com/119093979
PW: cine
The thing about Cinelog is that I find it to be a very good starting point for a grade. However, the transfer LUTs are perplexing to me. For instance, taking my Cinelogged ProResHQ files and applying a transfer LUT to S-Gamut3.Cine/SLog3 does not yield results that look anything like the actual S-Gamut3.Cine/SLog3 footage that I have in the same project. And I do own a C100, so I can see a use for using a transfer LUT to map ML raw footage to Canon Log. But there are at least three to choose from. Without knowing what is what, I find myself just clicking through LUTs until I find one that doesn't skyrocket or bury the exposure.
I am looking into the possibility of investing in an FSI monitor. As Andy suggested, I suspect that my not having one is adding to my confusion as I try to figure this out.
Definitely made a difference in comparisons with the previous grade in last video and this one.
Surprised (or should I not be) to see the softness coming from 5D3 RAW comparing to these two other beasts.
Do you prefer the Nikkor AIS 50 1.8 over the 50L 1.2? (Videography wise)
I've tested it before but only had a few days to play with last year and felt that I needed more time to have a 'decent' relationship with it before buying. I mean it took me years to get used to the 50L 1.2 (however I love it so much that I sometimes hate it!) if you know what I'm saying? lol
Thanks for sharing @QuckHitRecord!
@QuickHitRecord - I think maybe your are not accounting for the fact that the Sony and 5D mark III are completely different sensors with very different internal architectures and colorscience. What you are looking at is a Sony shot that is internally debayered and recorded to compressed ProRes in Slog3/S-Gamut3-Cine against a raw Canon DSLR shot. It's a different sensor, completely different color matrices, lower DR and that's without factoring in things like the exposure, lens, lighting, white balance etc.
Remember, our BMD Film colorspace model is reverse engineered because Blackmagic don't publish it - It is 'nearly' perfect. The transform from Cinelog-C to Slog3/S-Gamut3-cine uses the exact log formula and chromaticity as published by Sony but these shots will not match and neither will other cameras - that's not what Cinelog is for and not what we offer (yet). If every camera matched no one would be buying the more expensive ones.
For a better color match you will need to use ACES but for ACES to work as intended you must use an Input Device Transform that is a unique to each camera model. This is something we are working on but it's not an easy task to do correctly and even if/when we have a transform to ACES RRT there will still be variance. We assume that each manufacturer produces their IDT's under lab conditions but if you take footage from say a RED and an Alexa into ACES there is still a difference in color - i.e. someone isn't doing it right.
There are tools for color matching. Light Illusion Color Match is probably the best but it's $500 and you need identically framed shots from each camera for it to work properly.
You can get a better match using Resolve's ColorMatch by transforming each camera's shot of a chart (Macbeth, DSC etc) to linear and hitting match but to do this you need a lut that transforms the Sony Slog3 to linear. It's always best to match color without the influence of gamma.
Logically speaking it is possible to match pixel Lab values between 2 completely different sensors but there are a multitude of factors that limit how close the match can actually be. It can never be perfect. I'm working on a new set of matrices for Magic Lantern because the Adobe ones I submitted, although very good, were developed for photography. I think it's possible that video camera manufacturers use matrix scaling to produce lower saturation in their baked log profiles, partly to ensure there is less chance of clipping and to increase latitude for color grading. This isn't such a big issue with raw images because you can control these things in post before baking an intermediate.
In the meantime I can make intermediate luts that bring all your shots closer (not perfect) in terms of color but you will have to decide which camera to use as the reference - and send me the shots.
re: Canon colorspaces. I actually don't know what colorspace the C100 uses but the Canon transforms in Cinelog-C are the ones published by Canon for the C500. If the C100's Canon Log profile is not in Cinema or P3 gamut I'll assume it's REC709 and will need a simple 1D lut transform. I haven't built input transforms for in-camera log profiles yet (for use in Resolve - but you can do this in the ACR version using OCIO) mainly because Log-C and Slog3 hold more DR than Cineon and will clip the signal but I'll build a couple so you can try things the other way around and transform the C100 and FS7 shots to Cinelog-C.
Andy could you do a step by step for the Xrite or a similar colour tool to help us understand how to use it in MLV? I've tried many times and it comes out shitty.
Quote from: DeafEyeJedi on February 13, 2015, 08:02:54 AM
Do you prefer the Nikkor AIS 50 1.8 over the 50L 1.2? (Videography wise)
I can't comment on the Canon 50mm f/1.2 because I have only ever used the f/1.4 and f/1.8. But I tend to stick to my Nikkor AIS prime set whenever I can.
Quote from: Andy600 on February 13, 2015, 01:51:17 PMRemember, our BMD Film colorspace model is reverse engineered because Blackmagic don't publish it - It is 'nearly' perfect.
This might be a dumb question, but is it possible to reverse-engineer the color coming straight out of the Canon cameras with ML raw (perhaps even on a camera by camera basis)? Could Cinelog be applied to ML raw footage directly, removing the slight variable that is the BMD Film color space?
@dubzeebass - Yes! I'll get a quick tut together for this.
@QuickHitRecord - Not a dumb question when you look at it from that point of view but unfortunately that's not how it works - I wish it were that easy.
Sorry for the long post... as usual :P
I'm no expert when it comes to sensors but this oversimplified description should give you an idea of how things work as I understand it - A raw image from your 5D mark III does not have color in the way we typically understand color. The sensor is monochromatic with a color filter array sitting on top http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter) - the CFA is a repeating mosaic of 1 red, 2 green and 1 blue pixels. When photons pass through any of the red, green or blue color filters it registers as voltage on the sensor and depending on what color the pixel filter is and what voltage is measured a guess is made as to what the color is (red, green or blue). What you see as color is basically made-up by a debayering/demosaicing algorithm. The debayer process looks at surrounding pixels measurements and from these will assign levels of red, green or blue for each pixel. The RGB levels dictate the hue and saturation. If you download RawDigger http://www.rawdigger.com/ (http://www.rawdigger.com/) you will see a visual representation of how the raw mosaic is made up and what the raw image actually looks like.
Anyway, getting back to what you asked - Could Cinelog be applied directly to ML Raw footage? Yes and no - it is applied to the raw footage (in Resolve the raw data is put into a non-destructive 32bit floating point workspace) but colorspace transforms are applied after debayering - ACR and DaVinci Resolve debayer to specific colorspaces - Cinelog-C transforms these colorspaces, not the raw footage - the debayer algorithm does that part.
The color matching issue is really only an issue for multi-camera shoots where a colorist will usually be tasked with manually matching the source material from various different cameras to an approximate uniform look for the primary grade before getting into the artistic 'look'. The purpose/concept of ACES is to tackle that exact issue and establishes a camera agnostic workflow where an Input Device transform (IDT) will transform the input from camera A, Camera B and Camera C to whatever AMPAS has decided is the 'basic look/basic color' of ACES.
An ACES IDT is a script consisting of a linearization component and color matrices. Simple ones can be a single 3x3 matrix (with a chromatic adaptation matrix for a second illuminant) but the more accurate IDTs can extend to an independent matrix for each exposure index over a range of color temperatures - and all this only works if the metadata in the raw or video file is correctly described and readable.
With ML Raw being 'raw' we have got the ability to manipulate things a lot but we do not have ACES IDT's for any DSLR yet. The matrices in ML DNGs transform the sensor's native RGB values to CIE XYZ colorspace (used for connecting colorspaces) but they are not used for color matching.
Cinelog-C can get an ML Raw image into ACES colorspace but it will still be Canon DSLR color at the moment. What is needed is intermediate matrices for each camera that act as the IDT to transform each DSLR's color to (or as close to) the color of ACES with a minimum of 2 transforms for Daylight and Tungsten shots.
It's a huge job and with my limited resources I can only really do it to the level of color matching reflectance from 24 color patches (i.e. a MacBeth color chart) under controlled lighting. It will not be perfect either because I don't have a color lab with a monochromator, spectroradiometer, spectrophotometer etc. The best I can do is buy a copy of ISET Camera Simulator for Matlab and rent the cameras. The first job is to produce a better set of default color matrices for ML raw because even the Adobe ones have flaws (this may be by design but some things simply don't add up as they should) - I'm working on that bit at the moment and will then get back to developing the ACES IDTs. Even if/when I do have a set they will still need approval for inclusion in the ACES source code and then it's up to app devs to include them in things like Resolve. I have hope but I honestly don't know if that will even happen - probably not, but the matrices will still be useable with OpenColorIO and can be baked into luts so that we can edge closer to ACES color.
Thanks, Andy. This is interesting stuff and with your help it is starting to make more sense to me.
Absolutely worth the read and definitely helps us digest down the workflows... I'll keep trying to get to the bottom of this!
Thanks @Andy600 for your prolific responses with depth details as always!
Quote from: QuickHitRecord on February 15, 2015, 12:07:56 AM
I can't comment on the Canon 50mm f/1.2 because I have only ever used the f/1.4 and f/1.8. But I tend to stick to my Nikkor AIS prime set whenever I can.
Point taken, Thanks!
I'm trying to install my Cinelog profiles and they are not showing up in ACR, plus I am not able to login to the bank. I have JUST purchased them and I am not getting any support so far. Please help
Hi @Rodrigo - Sorry for not getting back to you immediately. We're based in Europe and it's out of office hours but I still try to check emails during the evening.
Your issue is related to the camera ID tag and is caused by either using raw_rec or an old converter. We recommend using MLV_rec and using either MLVFS or raw2cdng to extract the DNG files and write the correct metadata.
The metadata can be fixed using ExifTool (or simply reconvert your raw files with MLVFS or raw2cdng) but to save you the hassle I will send you a profile for the generic tag shown in your DNG - The profile will be accessible to any DNG with the Canikon tag but it is important that it only be used with the 5D mark II due to camera specific matrices. Please check your email in a few minutes.
Hi Andy600,
Thank you, I was converting using raw2dng and the profile wasn't showing up. I then used RAWmagic and it worked out just fine
I'm on a mac so raw2cdng will not work...onless they have a .dmg for mac users
@Rodrigo - No problem. I've just sent you the generic profile should you have older DNGs without the original raw container. Also a direct link for LUT Bank registration.
raw2cdng is PC only but MLVFS is Mac :)
Best regards!
Hello Andy600,
thank very much. Now will this profile that you just sent me will work like the purchased ones that I just got? I ask this because for some reason RAWmagic is giving me ALL pink washed out frame ( no idea why ).
Also, is it possible to get the CANIKON profile for the T3i as well, I use that one just as much as the 5D mark2
Thank you
Rodrigo
I'm afraid as many of us stated before -- RAWMagic isn't supported here on ML. (Regardless of how nice the app may seem)
@andy600- Hi again ( sorry to be such a pest ). If you cannot send me the CANIKON profile for the T3i, how exactly can I use Exiftools to recover the metadata in my dngs.
Thanks again
Rodrigo
Maybe I'm a little off track (due to my flu :-\), but if I import some dng into Resolve using BMD to Cinelog-C as an input lut and later on Cinelog-C to BMD (round trip, I know, it sounds stupid), shouldn't the clip look the same like completely without luts? Which it doesn't in my case, frankly speaking they look crazy.
I came up with this by just playing around with filmconvert pro for resolve. I tried to find the best way to send filmconvert the data (choosing camera and profile), so I tried a lot of combinations using the transform luts. Arri Alexa with rec709 is a nice starting point, but I wanted to know if there is something better...
Regards
@kontrakatze - I'm not sure what you are doing but the Cinelog-C to BMD Film lut is an exact inversion of the BMD Film to Cinelog-C lut. You can test this easily by adding 2 nodes. On the first node, add the BMD Film to Cinelog-C lut and on the second, add the Cinelog-C to BMD Film lut. By pass all nodes (Alt +D from memory) and the image will not change.
re: Film Convert - Cinelog-C is the same as Log-C Wide gamut RGB but has a slightly different log curve (less compressed) - the Film Convert Alexa presets will be the most accurate but remember, the color of your DNG's is defined by the color matrices. You could also try the Cinelog-C to Cinelog-C with Film Matrix lut before adding an Alexa Film Convert preset.
Ok, I found the reason for this error. Somehow Resolve did not update the preview correctly. I had to switch do the second clip and back to the first clip for the update to take place. Therefore the weird look. By the way, I changed the input-lut in the preferences.
Regarding filmconvert, I'm still not sure which way to take:
- importing dng to resolve
- setting expo and white balance
- transcoding to cinelog-c, exporting as prores
- importing prores files again (I sometimes take Prores 4444, sometimes just ProresHQ)
- color correction
- and now what? On the last node before filmconvert: "Cinelog-C_to_Alexa_Log-C_EI800_with_Film_Matrix" or "Cinelog-C_to_Cinelog-C_Film_Matrix_RGB" to get the color matrix to filmconvert? And as a camera what do I choose? Arri and LogC / LogCFilm for the first instance, Default and sRGB for the second instance?
- What do I get from filmconvert? Is this still Cinelog-C after the filmconvert node? Is this dependant on the Camera I chose? In this case LogC for the first one and sRGB for the second? Do I have to put a Cinelog-C to REC709 on the output?
And one last question:
The difference between "Cinelog-C to REC709 Full" and "Cinelog-C to REC709 Legal" is quite clear, but how does "Cinelog-C to Cinelog REC709" come into the game? I thought Cinelog and Rec709 are quite different colorspaces?
As I have to stay in bed, I have time to think and get confused...
I hope I don't step on anybodies nerves....
Regards
Yes, you pretty much have the procedure right but you would add the "Cinelog-C_to_Alexa_Log-C_EI800_with_Film_Matrix" or "Cinelog-C_to_Cinelog-C_Film_Matrix_RGB" before your color correction i.e. the node chain to add to your imported ProRes log masters would be:
1. Cinelog-C_to_Alexa_Log-C_EI800_with_Film_Matrix or Cinelog-C_to_Cinelog-C_Film_Matrix_RGB (this transforms Cinelog-C to Alexa Log-C with either Alexa Wide gamut or Alexa Film Matrix primaries)
2. node(s) for color correction/grading - (leave untouched for now)
3. Film Convert - select Alexa Log-C or Alexa Log-C Film Matrix (depending on which profile you used in step 1 above)
4. Use the Film Convert curve control to adjust contrast and sat control for saturation
5. make changes to color using the node(s) added in step 2 or just use the Film Convert controls
6. check levels on scopes and export your graded video.
Alternatively, select any other Cinelog-C to 'other colorspace' lut and use the relevant Film Convert input profile. i.e. Cinelog-C to sRGB lut and Film Convert's default sRGB input profile.
Film Convert is emulating what the image will look like if it were to be printed to film using an ARRI laser http://www.arri.com/archive_technologies/arrilaser/ (http://www.arri.com/archive_technologies/arrilaser/) or similar. The one step I am not sure about with Film Convert is what (if any) Color Print Stock or color reversal film they emulate!?
In a real film workflow the image would be captured on film negative, the negative would be developed and this would then be printed to a color reversal film, color timed (i.e. a primary grade using printer lights) and printed to a color print film master (i.e. Kodak Vision 2383 etc). This is then duplicated for distribution.
If Film Convert does not include the last step (i.e. the Color Print Film) you will need to add a good PFE lut (Print Film Emulation) and set Film Convert's Film Curve to zero (i.e. so you only get the color and not the contrast).
Depending on the Film stock emulation selected and print emulation lut you may get very thick or sometimes out-of-gamut color that will require color correction in nodes before the Print Emulation lut. This is exactly the reason PFE luts exist i.e. so you can avoid any nasty surprises when your digitally captured video is printed to real film - it allows you to see color errors and correct them before committing to expensive printing.
The Cinelog-C Film Look luts do everything in a single lut ;) - we have added corrections to adjust for possible color errors, added saturation and other color tweaks for the 'look' and use the gamma/tone curve of the print stock for contrast - but because we added saturation and color tweaks/fixes we don't call them PFE luts.
re: your last question: yes, Cinelog-C and REC709 are very different. Cinelog-C is a scene referred colorspace and REC709 is a display referred colorspace. The Cinelog-C to Cinelog REC709 (legal and full range) luts are based on the REC709 transfer function and all Cinelog-C to rec709 luts transform from Cinelog-C primaries to REC709/sRGB primaries AND the include our s-curve to fit the DR of the image into a REC709 display space.
The Cinelog-C to REC709 lut is the same but does not have an s-curve (i.e. it's just the rec709 transfer function) and highlights will clip. The rec709 transfer function will allow for highlights above 1.0 (floating point) up to ~2.2 (on a scale of 0.0 - 1.0) but any values above 1 will be clipped when rendered - this is what an s-curve is for ;)
Get well soon!! :)
Andy, what shall I say, you are damn great!
Thank you very much, I think I got it know. This IS complicated and there are quite a lot of big stones on the way.
While coffing like a wulf I had some good time reading ;D , but I'm getting better day by day.
Kind regards,
kontrakatze
@Andy600: i talked to the people at filmconvert. They told me whatever you put into filmconvert the output is sRGB. What would you recommend to do to get a Rec709 in the end? What can I do to transform sRGB back to Cinelog or directly to Rec709? Any ideas?
Regards
@kontrakatze - sRGB and Rec709 use the same RGB primaries. The only difference is that sRGB is a 2.2 gamma power law curve and Rec709 has a small linear part to help suppress sensor noise. Rec709 shadows are subsequently a little darker but the color will not change and gamma is ~2.4. I'll upload an sRGB to Rec709 lut for you (check PMs in a min).
There is no need to transform to Cinelog-C again. If you want to add a PFE lut just set Film Convert's curve to zero - your image will have the film preset's color but still be print density. Print Density is required for PFE luts ;)
Andy, thank you very much! This was a big help!
Have a nice day,
kontrakatze
Andy I was wondering what your recommendations are for output format? I was reading up about the ProRes codecs, which seem like a good choice to master from the ML DNGs, but since I use Windows/Adobe, I assume I can't export from After Effects/Cinelog to ProRes because there is no ProRes encoding on Windows? I have used DNxHD in the past, but I was wondering how to set non-16:9 frame ratios (such as 2.39:1) or frames bigger than 1080. And it seemed a bit strange to use as if there was a bug (for example, the dialogue box appears slightly off the top of the screen and the field box in it dips below the dialogue boundary itself). I see there's now NDxHDR which perhaps is better?
@kontrakatze - You're welcome! :)
@TrueIndigo - You can get 3rd party ProRes codecs like http://www.miraizon.com/products/codecsoverview.html (http://www.miraizon.com/products/codecsoverview.html) for Windows but they are not identical to Apple ProRes and have been known to fail broadcast standards tests.
I personally stick to (and recommend) DNxHD for most things on a Windows system.
I haven't experimented enough with the DNxHR codec in Resolve. AFAIK it can only be used if wrapped in an MFX container - some NLE's don't support MXF. It's nice to have UHD output and there are variants that seem a like-for-like match of ProRes (i.e. hq, xq, 4444 etc) but I can't recommend using it with Cinelog unless you are sure your NLE can read MXF and DNxHR.
DNxHD and DNxHR output in fixed 16:9 or 4:3 frame ratios. You will always get black bars if your footage is not the same. Most domestic displays use those ratios and AVID decided to go with the standard. I also think it's a bit inflexible for an intermediate codec, but it's not a bug. You can always re-frame/crop the final video dimensions when rendering your deliverable (i.e. H.264, DCP etc) but remember, any grading you do to your Cinelog-C log master will also affect the appearance of the black bars. You can get around this using Resolve's Output Blanking.
There are several other codec options you could try such as Cineform 10bit/16bit, Grass Valley HQ/HQX or plain old .DPX image sequences (still a favorite among colorists) but the main thing to remember when rendering a Cinelog-C log master is to always render to 10bit or higher bit depth codec.
Hi Andy will you put the conversion puts from srgb to rec709 to the LUT bank?
@Lars - Yes, I'll add that one now plus there are a few other REC709 and Film luts to add today/tomorrow. I'm preparing a update mailout with a few more transforms - ACES 2065-1, ACEScc, ACEScg and updated ACES Proxy plus 'beta' transforms for Cinestyle, ProTune Flat, Protune Rec709, ProLost Flat. There is also a transform specifically for Canon C100 and C300 cameras (shooting Canon Log in CP Lock mode), built using ACES - this is so we can test a specific camera IDT outside of an ACES environment.
Fantastic! Cannot wait to try the ProLost and Cinestyle transforms!
@Andy600! Massive thanks for you,re awesome cr2hdr dualiso log lut. I just published the latest update for cr2hdr-r. The results are beautiful.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13512.msg140964#msg140964
*drooling* like a dog in here... Quit teasin' me @Danne!
Looking forward to your new LUTS in the bank @Andy600!
P.s. I shoot often with CineStyle On 5D3 for work (when MLV/RAW isn't permitted) shame on my bosses! [emoji6]
There's a discussion about 5D raw workflow going on here:
http://liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/colour-space-for-5d-mkiii-general-colour-science-workflow.4357/ (http://liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/colour-space-for-5d-mkiii-general-colour-science-workflow.4357/)
Perhaps @Andy600 should chime in?
Hi @Andy600 and guys
I followed your tips and I am converting in Resolve my dng clips into DNxHD.
But I have a gamma shift issue during one of the steps of my workflow.
My workflow:
- convert MLV to Dng with raw2cdng
- open my clips in resolve in a timeline
- white balance
- in the first node, apply the transform lut "bmd to cinelog" (I did not do it in the input panel and now I have too many clips already done... )
- render as individual DNxHD 1080p 444 clips
now, I have my clips ready to edit in Premiere:
- import DNxHD 1080p 444 clips in premiere
- edit
- send to resolve with fcp xml
- apply in the last node cinelog to rec709 legal LUT (as above, I should have put the LUT in the output voice in the panel)
- Color correct in the nodes before the lut
Now, it comes the issue:
Since I need to apply lower thirds and graphics to my final Color graded clip, I want to send it back to Premiere, so:
- render as unique DNxHD 1080p 444 graded clip
- import into premiere
- apply graphics etc
- render as h264
And the problems are:
- When importing in premiere, the grade is slightly washed (comparing with the result I see in resolve), like there is some gamma issue.
- When I render as h264 from Premiere, the clip is even more washed than what I see in premiere.
I checked rendering directly in resolve a h264 clip and the result is perfect, exactly what I see in resolve as well.
But this way I cannot have my lower thirds, nor my preffered transition effects I apply in Premiere...
I don't know if this is the right place, but since you reccomended to render our clips in DNxHD and keep them and discard MLV, maybe you already know how to handle this.
Thank you. Regards.
@ruber - this is related to the way premier handles full range levels with some codecs/wrappers.
On your second pass (the graded, edited footage) try exporting a DNxHD 444 shot with Video levels instead of Data levels (in the render job settings panel of Resolve).
I'll also add a couple of technical luts to the LUT Bank for 'data_to_video' and 'video_to_data' corrections.
Hey Andy,
I have a job coming up which will be a mix of interviews and product shots. I want to shoot the interviews as h.264 and the rest as raw. I'm wondering which profile you'd recommend to use in a mkIII to match the ProRes files I'll get from MLV & Cinelog.
@rtwomey - The closest Picture Style in terms of dynamic range and color is Technicolor Cinestyle. I would recommend ETTR and always use Technicolor's recommended settings or it messes up the math (-4 contrast, -2 sat, 0 sharpening and 0 color tone). Use fill-lights, reflectors if needed. Shoot at 160 ISO and use an ND if it's over exposed - this will give you the max DR to play with in post. If you have to push ISO I would only go up to 640 unless it's a 5D Mark III.
Next best thing would be ProLost Flat - i.e. the same settings as used Cinestyle with Picture Style set to Neutral - but Standard will be closer in terms of color.
The next Cinelog-C update has input transforms for both - they will not match fully in terms of color (yet) because in-camera H.264 and MLV DNG files use very different methods for color rendering but, if you shoot a Macbeth chart, you will be able to color match them better in Resolve.
Thanks for the reply, Andy. Looking forward to the update.
@Andy600
Since you're the pro, do you know why ACES 1.0 OCIO config does not include a standard sRGB D65 ODT? Closest is a sRGB D60 Sim. This is kind of bizarre since sRGB monitors are all calibrated to D65.
This question was asked here but the answers are confusing and very vague...
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/academyaces/N85bt9Aqn48
@Marvin - I have no direct involvement with ACES but I'm with you on this - it's a bit odd.
The sRGB, Rec709 and Rec2020 ODTs are really only a 'look' so it's not that big an big issue (D60 and D65 are very close too). It wouldn't be too difficult to chromatically adapt the white point of the current D60 sRGB ODT to D65 if needed but, for accuracy, it's much better to go from ACES to sRGB with a matrix and transfer function - or that baked into a lut.
@Andy600
Thank you Andy, it worked ;)
Hello guys, sorry for the lame question but what is the difference and benefits between Cinelog and VisionLog?
Read the forum.
Hi Andy,
I have send you one email with a DNG, for a profile (ACR) Did you receive it ??
Thanks :) :)
@arrinkiiii - Yes, I've just checked my emails. Sorry for the delay but I've been ill for a few days. I'll send the profile asap :)
@Sane__ - in a word 'math'. Cinelog-C and all the other colorspace transforms we provide are based entirely on linear matrices (derived from the published XY chromaticity and white point of each colorspace) and log formulas provided by the manufacturers. Everything can be fully reversed and/or transformed to/from virtually any other colorspace. VisionLog is a proprietary, non-linear transform that does not map code values in a useful way.
To the untrained eye VisionLog will look like a log signal but it will not act like one. The main purpose of a linear to log transform is compression and if the compression algorithm (in this case, a log formula) is not exact (or non existent, drawn freehand etc), it cannot be uncompressed without significant loss of information and this will result in contouring artifacts, clipping and incorrect RGB values. The VisionLog ACR versions clip shadow and highlight information. The BMD to VisionLog luts are very random and, being only 3D cubes, they don't have enough resolution - my guess is that they were built using something like LightIllusion Matchlight which is ok for matching the color of 2 almost identical shots but useless for defining a colorspace.
Virtually all NLE and color grading apps used today are built on the same math we use for Cinelog.
Thank you so much =)) It's no delay, i just thought that you didn't receive it. Hope everything is good with you.
Thanks 8)
Andy, I know you had previously recommended that ML users opt for BMDFilm 4k. I noticed that the guide recommends the sans 4k version. Is there one or the other you'd recommend when using Magic Lantern?
Thank you.
@Pyriphlegethon - It doesn't matter now because there are transform luts for both BMD Film and BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C colorspace. The only difference between BMD Film and BMD Film 4k is the transfer function. The BM 4k camera has a little less DR than the original Cinema and Pocket Cameras. Blackmagic adjusted the TF to take this into account.
Why are people using BMDFilm 4k as an input profile? Or have I misunderstood something?
When using ACR, would I not want to go from Cinelog V3.0 to Cinelog-C?
@anderSF - In the ACR version you would use the Cinelog V3.0 to Cinelog-C transform (using OCIO). The BMD Film / BMD Film 4k to Cinelog-C transforms are for the DaVinci Resolve version (using LUTs).
@Andy600 - Thank you, that's what I thought! Will buy soon!
The newer .X version of Resolve added APPLY PRETONE CURVE and APPLY SOFT CLIP to the debayer panel,as mentioned here -
http://vanhurkman.com/wordpress/?p=3208
It seems the debayering process has been reworked behind the scenes, and so will use the new way for debayering. So I am wondering, should APPLY PRETONE CURVE be turned off, since that settings is for the old way of debayering, and only there for backwards compatibility?
Also, should APPLY SOFT CLIP be left on or off, if we are doing the process of transcoding ml cdngs to cinelog-c masters?
On another matter, on the tutorials for transcoding cdng to cinelog-c masters, they mention to keep this process simple with only doing color balancing and exposure. So this means not to worry about getting the full dynamic range for luminance in this initial transcoding, that we should only to deal with the exposure of the luminance and not its range?
@terranaut - The new raw features in Resolve are for debayering to REC709 colorspace - i.e. when you are doing an end-to-end grade with the DNG images (not a log transcode). If you use them with BMD Film/BMD Film 4K you basically mess up the log math and introduce a tone curve. The Cinelog REC709 and Film Look LUTS have built-in soft clipping and a tone curve. We have also developed a very nice new soft-clip algorithm that will be used for some new REC709 luts in a forthcoming update.
re: transcoding to Cinelog-C. The log curve in Cinelog-C holds more DR than BMD Film and maps BMD Film primaries to Alexa Wide gamut RGB. All you need to do is add the BMD Film to Cinelog-C transform lut, adjust WB and exposure while looking through the Cinelog-C to Cinelog Rec709 lut (for a visual reference) or, better still, adjust a color chart's mid grey to be at 445 (i.e. Kodak LAD 18% gray) on the waveform monitor (make sure you have set to data levels for monitoring).
The linear DR of Canon DSLR's is less than the log transfer function in Cinelog-C can store so there is a little under and overshoot room. the signal will fit nicely into a 10bit container without clipping. You can unpack a Cinelog-C ProRes or DNxHD render with Cinelog-C to Linear sRGB and still have the DR of the raw images. The only difference will be a) its debayered and b) WB is baked in - if you render to a 4:4:4 codec you have huge room for grading but 4:2:2 is fine for most work.
@Andy600,
Would you consider working with the folks at FilmConvert so that we have a CineLog preset in the next release?
"4:2:2 is fine for most work" - yes, I was wondering about that. The free "LE edition" of the Avid DNxHD codecs do not include a 4:4:4 option for the 10-bit depth settings. Since we are coming from RAW, is very much lost with 4:2:2 colour sampling, Andy?
Another observation:
As an experiment, when I exported a DNG sequence from the After Effects timeline to NDxHD 185 10-bit (1080p25 in the codec dialogue box), in the After Effects render queue, I then set a different frame size (an enlargement to 2K) and shape (to fit my 2.39:1 ML material), and this resulted in a mov of that size and shape, overriding the codec's 16:9 1080. This mov played perfectly in Premiere on a timeline sequence set for that frame size.
@QuickHitRecord - RubberMonkey approached me some time ago about this and of course I want it to happen but I deliberately delayed it.
The reason is because I don't feel default MLV color related meta (embedded by the converter apps) is optimal yet and this causes issues with white balance and color rendering depending on the app used for reading/grading the DNG.
We can control this to some extent with the ACR version of Cinelog because the embedded matrices are overridden by the camera profile but even this is less than ideal as it relies on additional HSV tables to correct any out of gamut color that occur when using Adobe standard forward matrices. The HSV table is not read by most other apps (Resolve, Nuke etc) so embedding it will not help.
MLVFS and raw2dng both now use the same matrices that are embedded by the Adobe DNG converter. This helps significantly with white balance but there can still be issues with saturation in highlights requiring some user correction (the amount of correction depends on the color app being used).
My goal is to define a standard color rendering for Magic Lantern Raw RGB to produce identical (or as near to identical) color values between all MLV capable cameras using only matrices, without requiring an embedded ICC profile or HSV table.
Without the means to measure/obtain the spectral sensitivity of every sensor (because Canon do not publish the data and I don't have $20k spare for the specialist gear or every camera to actually measure) I have to rely entirely on Adobe Labs measurements, more specifically the information contained in colormatrix1 and colormatrix2 which transform non-white balanced CIE XYZ D50 to Native Camera RGB values and then, assuming the forward matrix tags are being read by color apps, derive new forward matrices (this is limited by DNG specs).
If the forward matrices are not read then it has to be done with the actual color matrices and this is not easy without knowing/measuring the spectral sensitivity in order to compute a new, non-Adobe set. Blackmagic achieved this with the Cinema Camera and Pocket camera which have different sensors but identical color matrices, producing near identical color - it may be possible (but unlikely) to develop a single matrix set for use with MLV - something I am currently looking into.
I already have candidate matrices (different to Adobe Standard) but an additional color correction matrix (CCM) is also required to get close to uniform color rendering. This is ok for Cinelog users as I can build this into our OpenColorIO config or bake the CCM into our luts but not everyone wants or uses Cinelog. It would be unfair of me to not attempt to fix problems at meta level first plus, it will only work if Cinelog users (who do not use ACR) extract DNGs with MLVFS or raw2cdng - not everyone does and TBH, a lot of user issues I deal with are predominantly meta related and mainly caused by raw converters using only the ML source provided, single DCRaw matrix (half of the minimum requirement).
This issue has also stalled my work in development of ACES IDTs for Magic Lantern Raw Video because colormatrix1 and colormatrix2 DNG tags need to be filled by default (i.e. ML source needs this - and all converter apps need to embed the same matrix information) before doing the CDL work required for the IDT - I did it once before but it's flawed because the DNG meta needs 2 illuminants for me to produce the 2 illuminant IDTs (minimum for ACES).
@TrueIndigo - DNxHD 444 is 10bit ;)
You do of course lose some color information with 4:2:2 so it really depends on how extreme the grade will be and how much storage space you have available. I stick to 444 for maximum flexibility but 4:4:2 for any casual, unimportant raw video that I just want to archive. If you do any compositing work use 444.
re: DNxHD frame size - that's interesting. It shouldn't work. Are you sure you're getting 2k dimension? I haven't actually tried it myself but I will.
I'm waiting for the release of the DNxHR codec pack. I hope Blackmagic rework their implementation of DNxHR too because restricting it to MXF is a PITA.
Hi!
Anybody got some experience with dnxhd transcoding using ffmpeg? Would you say it is the better choice over ProRes Transcoding to film format?
@Danne - that's a simple one. ProRes on Mac, DNxHD (soon to be superseded by DNxHR) on Windows - pretty much industry standard.
edit: regarding FFMpeg - hmmm, it says VC3 = DNxHD in FFMpeg. Is it not actual Avid DNxHD? http://www.itbroadcastanddigitalcinema.com/ffmpeg_howto.html#Encoding_VC-3 (http://www.itbroadcastanddigitalcinema.com/ffmpeg_howto.html#Encoding_VC-3)
More importantly VC3 looks limited to 8bit? - if that's the case then it's a non-starter.
Thanks, I,ll look into it.
"DNxHD 444 is 10bit" - yes, but those are not available in the free "LE editon" codec set are they? I think the 4:4:4 codecs have an "x" after the name to indicate this extra quality, such as "DNxHD 365x" (1920 x 1080 x 25fps) which is 4:4:4 10-bit compared to "DNxHD 185" (1920 x 1080 x 25 fps) which is 4:2:2 10-bit - I don't see the 365x option in the list. Presumably these are only available in the professional codec pack. To be honest, I don't think my material probably needs full colour sampling, and I would welcome any file size reduction I can get with video. I just wondered though if 4:2:2 (which is broadcast quality) may nevertheless result in a colour degradation, mindful of the fact that if you are going to delete your camera files you therefore want these DNxHD files to be best quality they can be.
"Are you sure you're getting 2k dimension?" - When I check Windows properties the dimensions for the clip are blank (presumably because it's non-standard?), but when I imported the file into Mpeg streamclip as if to export it, the dialogue shows: "2048 x 858 (unscaled)" as the default size of the clip, so I guess it really is that size and not just automatically stretched-to-fit on my 2K Premiere timeline. There are no black bars top/bottom (within 16:9), just the very wide CinemaScope shape.
Found this https://github.com/dahnielson/iola/wiki/Video:-Avid-DNxHD
Seems I can get 10-bit files from my testing right now. How can one compare and decide ProRes or dnxhd in this case?
DNxHD 220x
For highest image quality in a YCrCb-color space for 10-bit sources.
1920x1080 and 1280x720
progressive or interlaced
10-bit 4:2:2 YCbCr
185 Mbit/s @ 1080p25
175 Mbit/s @ 1080p24
90 Mbit/s @ 720p25
90 Mbit/s @ 720p24
To transcode a file into eg. a 1080p25 10-bit 4:2:2 DNxHD 220x file:
ffmbc -i INPUT_FILE.MOV \
-vcodec dnxhd -b 185M -pix_fmt yuv422p10le \
-acodec pcm_s16le \
DNXHD_FILE.MOV
QuoteMLVFS and raw2dng both now use the same matrices that are embedded by the Adobe DNG converter.
Do you mean raw2cdng or have raw2dng v1 been reworked?
typo - it's raw2cdng
Ok thanks.
I so wished for dnxhd 444 but seems 10-bit 422 is max on ffmpeg. Gonna check some but stick to ProRes444 meanwhile.
That would be sweeeet!
I believe in you, @Danne!
[emoji119]
@TrueIndigo - AFAIK the LE pack is the same as the PE but does not have IMX (due to licensing). You should have DNxHD 1:1x in the PE pack if needed (I never use this) plus 444 up to 1080p/i 30fps. I have the LE pack installed and there are 444 options but no 'x' except for 1:1x.
1080p 444 might actually be 365x because 365 relates to bit rate. From memory, DNxHD 444 1080p is around 350Mbps (i.e. close to that number). I'll need to check to be sure.
http://www.avid.com/static/resources/US/documents/dnxhd.pdf (http://www.avid.com/static/resources/US/documents/dnxhd.pdf) DNxHD 444 1080 25p is 367Mbps - and called 365x. It's just a naming issue by the looks of things.
Does anyone know how to export our cinelg Log C MAsters to prores4444XQ from AE? i was able to get the option in the codec choices tab, but i get a errror when rendering out 4444xq. Project settings are 32 bit float. but i am on yosemite 10.10.2 which i dont think should make a problem but maybe?
I get the error Codec COmpression Error
@blainesuque - I think it's a CC2014 related issue. Try setting the project bit depth to 16bit and make sure to set RGB+alpha (not that you need the alpha channel). If this doesn't work I think it will require Adobe intervention.
Thanks! yea i tried that and it still didnt work, i am going to get on the phone with Adobe.
@blainesuque - Sorry I can't be of more help with this issue but do let us know what (if anything) you discover from Adobe.
Hi! Some progress in dnxhd and ffmpeg. Found a setting for 10-bit 440M! DOn,t know if this is overkill or not. Not really sure if it,s an alternative to ProRes444 from ffmpeg but hope you guys would shed some light here.
Fast
dnxhd1obit-440M
(http://s27.postimg.org/9wceo3sfj/dnxhd.png) (http://postimg.org/image/9wceo3sfj/)
ProRes444
(http://s27.postimg.org/z13f1irvz/Prores.png) (http://postimg.org/image/z13f1irvz/)
(http://s27.postimg.org/67mpomien/Screen_Shot_2015_03_23_at_20_19_25.png) (http://postimg.org/image/67mpomien/)
*Further progress on this theme will be on the cr2hdr-r thread. Got carried away in dnxhd discussion here, realize this thread is about cinelog.
Looking at the quick start guide it directs you to load [REC709]_Cinelog-C_to_REC709 in the 3D Video Monitor Lookup Table but I'm only seeing [REC709]_Cinelog-C_to_Cinelog_REC709 in the LUT folders. Was there a name change at some point and the guide is outdated?
@bengibb - Sorry, that's a typo. It was correct but I since replaced the single [REC709]_Cinelog-C_to_REC709 lut with full range and legal range options (the full range lut is the same as the one in the guide but I'll update it.
You could actually use any of the Cinelog Rec709 luts (except FM or DSLR) when white balancing and/or adjusting exposure as they all have the same white point. The Rec709 Legal and Rec709 Full luts are transfer function only (i.e. no s-curve) so you need to add your own curve before using those. The FM versions transform to Alexa Film Matrix RGB primaries (close to re709 but with some hue rotation to warmer tones and it's more colorful) and the DSLR versions are looks based on Picture Styles.
Thanks Andy, loving what I'm getting so far. In your opinion what's the max someone should be pushing exposure in their WB/EXP adjustments to the Cinelog intermediary file?
@bengibb - Good to hear! :)
WB should always be corrected to neutral while the image is still raw but there is a lot of headroom for adjustment later (especially if you rendered ProRes 444 intermediates).
I can't say exactly how much exposure correction is safe because it depends entirely on how you exposed the image when shooting. I've pushed/pulled exposure by +/-2 stops and it holds up fine so could probably take more - but if you constantly need to adjust by more that 2 stops you should look at your exposure practices.
I mainly shoot ETTR for raw shots but allow specular highlights to clip a little for better SNR. I don't use ETTR for low light / HDR scenes (i.e. night shots in a city) as most of the important information would be pushed towards the noise floor. In those situations I always expose for the main subject.
Hi,
you said, that you were going to add input luts for the gopro protune. Is this still true? I would be very interested in this, because I very often use my gopro for action-shots.
Regards
Not a ton of info to go on but I'd be interested to hear what you thoughts are on Resolve 12 now that details are coming out Andy, specifically the Color Managed Timelines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMsLQDS0YeU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMsLQDS0YeU)
Yes, at the end he talks about "genuine mathematical transforms"... similar to Cinelog? What new opportunities might this bring when used in conjunction with Cinelog? I know that there is no way of knowing how accurate these are without working with the program, but I'd be curious to hear what Andy thinks.
@kontrakatze - Yes, Protune, Cinestyle, ProLost, MarvelsCine, ACES 1.0 (cc, cg, proxy etc) and other colorspaces are coming in the next update. The transfer functions are fairly simple but it takes a little time and some tricky matrix math when it comes to finding the colorspace of baked profiles - but it's nearly ready and looking good :)
@bengibb & @QuickHitRecord - Without having R12 to play with, my best guess would be that the new per-clip colorspace inputs are based on ACES 1.0 (using IDTs) but work in Resolve's YRGB workspace. We do the same thing with OCIO in our ACR version of Cinelog-C. It will not affect a Cinelog workflow as Cinelog is mainly about getting raw images into a defined colorspace for transcoding but it will help multi-cam timelines come together quicker. If you transform Cinelog-C to one of the supported colorspace input presets you should get good results - it basically means you can use the same Resolve output transform (rec709, rec202 etc) for any footage, regardless of it's colorspace - sound familiar? ;)
When Peter Chamberlain talks about "genuine mathematical transforms" he simply means that the internal transformations in Resolve are using the actual formulae and chromaticity (RGB) of each colorspace (and possibly additional color correction matrices) - this is what we also do. We work with the exact same math then bake the transforms into high precision 1D+3D shaper luts. Luts have inherent rounding errors but the precision of Cinelog-C luts is so high that you will not get visible artifacts. We're working on a GPU accelerated OFX plugin solution too ;)
To sum up, it's a useful addition to Resolve and will work great with Cinelog-C but the new shot match function will probably be more useful to end users.
Just reading the R12 specs and these 2 stand out as potentially useful tools IF they are not meta locked specifically to BM cams
• Ability to view and change ISO for Blackmagic Camera RAW clips
• Black Sun Highlight Correction for Blackmagic Camera clips
this is useful
• Canon still camera RAW format CR2
Remote rendering also sounds awesome if you have more than one system available
and DNxHR in a Quicktime wrapper is supported :D
Pretty sure you've always been able to adjust ISO on non-BM RAW files ex: r3d.
@bengibb - You can adjust gain but not override meta before debayering. .r3d has a lot more options. I'm puzzled why there is still no raw white balance helper function, especially in the lite version. It's a relatively easy thing to implement. Cinema DNG specs assume the image is shot with correct white balance but in my experience this is rarely the case.
Andy, was curious... If you add BMDFilm>Cinelog-C>Cinelog C to Arri>and then FilmConvert AlexaC - footage looks so "reddish" and dark that require alot of color correction (gamma, gain and reducing red channel). Why is that? I never had RAW from Alexxa, but what I saw in tests, applying FC on real Arri footage looks pretty good from start.
@KelvinK - That's a little unusual. Can you send me a DNG so I can check the meta and let me know which version of FC you are using (and the settings you chose) and which version of Resolve. If your footage is correctly white balanced you shouldn't get a significant colorcast and if the image is dark you'll need to add some exposure correction (this is normal). The Cinelog-C luts transform the colorspace but the primaries depend entirely on the embedded color matrices in the DNG. I'll need to see the problem to tell you exactly what is happening.
Hi Andy just bought a c100 mark ii. Can you do a c-log to cinelog or cineon to cinelog transfer possibly?
@dubzeebass - Congrats :)
Canon Log in bt.601 (for 1DC 4k), bt.709, Cinema gamut, DCI, DCI P3+, C100/C300 CPLock (using ACES IDT transform) and WDR10 input and output transforms are all in the coming update plus we can add others if the Mark II uses something different or has a firmware update to Canon log2.
Thanks Andy! When's that update due out? You rock dude!
Hi Guys,
ok so I just purchased cinelog-c, but somehow I can't open the profile in ACR.
I put the "Canon DSLR for Magic Lantern Raw Video" folder (with the dcp profiles in it) into C:\Users\name\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles but when I open after effects and import a dng sequence I haven't got the cinelog option in the profile dropdown menu.
I've worked with visionlog and this profile is working well in ACR, but cinelog isn't showing up?!
My ACR Version is 8.1
I'm using dng material shot from the 5dmIII ml raw.
What am I doing wrong?
I've also installed the opencolorIO plugin.
Please help, thanks so much
@clemento - If the profiles are installed into the correct location the UniqueCameraModel tag is the likely culprit. Can you send me a DNG and I'll check for you.
We recommend using .MLV instead of .raw and extracting/converting DNG from .mlv files with either raw2cdng (PC) or MLVFS (Mac) as they embed deeper metadata.
I can send you a custom profile for your incorrectly tagged dng files (they are likely tagged as 'Canikon'). Can you let me know your camera model?
Hi Andy,
thanks for your fast reply. Yes it says Canikon when I open the dng files in ACR.
I'm shooting with a 5dmIII and various lenses.
here is one of the dng http://we.tl/Quf6ubmKEF
it's 50fps and has to be stretched by 1.61.
I do have now a solid workflow solution with .raw files, creating proxys etc.
so if anyhow possible I would stick to raw-rec. Can I use your custom profile for future shoots with the same camera(5dmIII), also if iso, aperture etc. changes?
thank you
@clemento:
Could you provide us one good reason why you'd rather shoot RAW over MLV (other than it's deep metadata which helps a lot with colorgrade, etc)?
I changed my mind :)
I thought it would be difficult to generate dng's and proxys from the mlv format on windows, but I checked "phreekz" raw2cdng converter and this works brilliant :)
Not so sure what the "mlv_rec.tmp" file is which is generated each time on the card while recording. Is it some sort of temporary cache?
Thanks
It's the "Reserve card space" feature, it ML -> Movie-> RAW menu
Today I discovered that the footage from my C100mk2 CAN actually be turned into Cinelog. It's a big process..
Canon Log -> 1D Lut Canon Log to Cineon -> 3D Lut, VFX Folder, Cineon to Linear -> 3D Lut, VFX Folder, Linear to BMDFilm -> BMDFilm to Cinelog-C
That said, the footage comes out weirdly exposed with overly-saturated greens and clipped reds when I convert to Rec. 709 or go from BMDFilm to Hunter's LUT.
Why?
@dubzeebas - Everything up to the BMD Film to Cinelog-C lut is actually 1D and does not alter chromaticity (even though some of the Resolve luts you added are in the 3D VFX folder). This means your input colorspace is still that of Canon log (I presume CPLock Canon Log?) so when the BMD Film to Cinelog-C lut is added it is not transforming from BMD Film chromaticity (as it is designed to do) but something close to rec709 RGB. The transfer functions (log-to-log-to-linear-to-log1D parts that alter the tone curve) will be correct but you are mapping completely wrong RGB values to Cinelog-C RGB. BMD Film RGB is much wider gamut than Rec709 and this is why it will massively oversaturate and clip.
If I get a chance I will send you an advanced copy of the C100/C300 luts tomorrow - these will transform directly from Canon log (all the variants I mentioned in a previous post) to Cinelog-C in a single lut. The CP Lock version uses Canon's ACES IDT matrices.
Quote from: Andy600 on April 23, 2015, 02:09:58 AM
If I get a chance I will send you an advanced copy of the C100/C300 luts tomorrow - these will transform directly from Canon log (all the variants I mentioned in a previous post) to Cinelog-C in a single lut. The CP Lock version uses Canon's ACES IDT matrices.
Very interesting! Didn't know that was diff 1D & 3D was changing colorspace vs. just changing tone curve. Those advanced LUTS would be much appreciated!! PM'ing you my email address.
@dubzeebass - sent :)
Got it, thanks!
Hi Andy,
I bought C100mk2 and color and contrast is different between original C100.
@2FAST - you mean they produce different color even with the same in-camera settings for Canon Log? (specifically Canon Log/CP Lock)
The Canon Log luts we're releasing work with the C100, C300, 1DC and C500 - I'm curious to know what Canon has done with the C100 mark II if there is a noticeable difference. They haven't released an ACES IDT yet so I don't know the matrix coefficients to compare to the Mark I but AFAIK Canon log math hasn't changed - unless it's Canon log2 as in the C300?
Andy check email, I sent a number of items.
Hi Andy,
Yes color from original C100 between C100mk2 is different even it's same setting. Even Canon Log/CP Lock. Even wide DR. Both is C-log but not C-log2.
Primary color of mk2 has saturated more than mk1.
And Mk2 has cool(blue) and Mk1 has warmer color. Mk2 come video like. It's not only from WB shift I think.
I met man from Canon and asked why color was changed. He said engine is different.
I feel also log curve is bit different. But I'm really not sure and I didn't do any science test. But it's true that some mk2 user saying same.
I feel mk2 has a bit DR more in highlight but lost DR in shadow and middle. It's just I feel though. At least highlight roll off coming better.
Here is a compare movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MNkV9d6FE
Someone says it's small difference but if I grading, I feel big difference.
But hey Andy, I was very busy in this half year and could back to this ML thread yesterday and surprised that Cinelog was progress so much! even I could not try yet. Finally now I'm downloading cinelog3 which was released in Jan.
So now you gonna make LUT for cinema eos? It's very nice to hear! Please let us know when it will be released!
Soon I will play with cinelog3 with 5D3 ML thanks for your work!
big thx to andy for helping me to bring cinelog to my miniraw2 ;-) he is such a genius! UHHHH also nice for my 70d with magic lantern hehe :D
cheers janosch
Great news, @janoschsimon -- now curious to see your footage in slo-mo from your miniraw2! 8)
@Andy600 -- got a question for you... basically I'm hoping for a way to speed up my workflow within AE when using Cinelog-C:
https://vimeo.com/128048171 (https://vimeo.com/128048171)
I remember you telling me that it is recommended to place the shadow/highlights fx plugin sandwiched in between the two OCIO in AE, correct?
Because I sometimes get better results if I were to instead place this on the bottom of the two OCIO (unless either I'm doing something wrong that somehow makes it look better or I'm literally blind and deaf) 8)
Also is there any way for me to have both the animation presets saved & enlisted without forcing me to open and install the configuration files each time I open AE?
Any suggestions or thoughts?
Much appreciated!
@deafeyejedi
still some work to to :-)
ive messed up the linearsiation GRRRR but colors are thx to andys help SPOT on :D
YEAH :D
Hi Andy600,
I'm trying to do the same steps you explained in this post (here's the link: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10151.msg140843#msg140843), but in AE.
I have some clips converted in Cinelog-C from 5D3-Cinelog-v3, then saved in Cineform444.
Now i'm trying in many ways to convert them using first OpenColorIO (conf: Cinelog-C, input: Cinelog-C, output: various) and then FilmConvert with many options, conformed to the option I previously choosed in OCIO: first with the 5D3 profiles, then the OCIO to sRGB and FConv to default, but I tried also the Arri profiles (as suggested), then the BMD4k, the RED Dragon, the Sony AS7, etc. Always selecting the corrisponding from OCIO...
The results are always superbs, but always different, in exposure, colors, curves, all is different! I expected the same results with all those conf. May be I was wrong?
Thank you for your attention
@Lureb74 - I don't think Film Convert targets a unified colorspace before applying a film emulation so it will render differently depending on the source footage. Have you tried it with actual footage from the various cameras? for testing you can download some shots from CML's camera evaluations http://www.cinematography.net/ (http://www.cinematography.net/).
Accurately matching color across different cameras is the intended function of ACES. ACES removes the aesthetic differences between each cameras color but for Magic Lantern Raw footage to work properly in an ACES environment we need different color matrices for each camera model and an ACES IDT - we need a Magic Lantern colorspace that provides a unified 'look' and that's what I am working on.
Magic Lantern currently uses color matrices from the Adobe DNG converter app (the DCRaw matrix is also from Adobe). The matrix describes to the raw reader (i.e. Resolve, Nuke, Premier etc) how to get from a cameras native RGB colorspace to XYZ. XYZ is used for connecting colorspaces and is part of DNG and CinemaDNG standards, plus it is used by .ICC profiles in Adobe apps.
The matrix used in MLV (gleaned from a set of 4 matrices but we only use one of them at present except for MLVFS and raw2cdng apps which have all 4) was derived from measuring sensor spectral sensitivity under a calibrated light source in a lab. The actual color was likely calibrated to an IT8 reference print target - because a DSLR's primary function is stills photography.
IT8 targets are perfect for print and scanner calibration but we're dealing with images that are intended to be seen on a TV, monitor or Cinema screen. More importantly, we are, or should be, working to a standard (CinemaDNG) that is a little different and more restricted in terms of color metadata than DNG standard so a slightly different approach to color calibration is required (we can't use forward matrices or other 'tweaks' to get a good color fit because the extra metadata will just be ignored by most color apps) - I'll go into more detail when I publish the Magic Lantern Color Project.
Because Canon sensors have very good color metamarism and are linear where it counts, it is 'technically' possible to closely match a different cameras' default color (not it's dynamic range, noise levels etc) or, to a lesser extent, even a film stock but the initial aim will be to obtain a default color set that references a standard MacBeth colorchecker chart values in Rec709 colorspace using only 2 color matrices.
In test, we (Cinelog) have produced a much lower average mean error across 24 color patches using this method when compared to using the Adobe matrix and without any luts being needed. We also matched a 5D Mark III, 7D and a 50D with no detectable difference in the color patches on daylight shots in Rec709 colorspace (same lens).
Interesting read.
Are forward matrices used in ACR/after effects or will transcoding rely on color matrix 1 here as well?
@Danne -The Forward Matrix tags describe the transform from white balanced XYZ to XYZ D50 (aka PCS) and are used in ACR - ACR also uses HSV tables for fine tuning color and correcting out-of-gamut color caused by the color matrix tags (the HSV table is embedded in a camera profile).
AFAIK, the Forward Matrix tags will be ignored by Premier and AE if the DNG is not debayered with ACR because they are (or should be) using CinemaDNG standard, not DNG standard - but it's Adobe so who knows? - it's easy to find out, just write one DNG with both the CM and FM tags and another with only the CM tags and see if there is a difference in color.
The color matrix tags are only intended for white balance but they also provide color if no FM tags are available. For MLV we really should be following CinemaDNG standard and have 2 color matrices (daylight and tungsten) calibrated for video, not print.
Forward matrices can be used to manipulate color saturation and hue but they are ignored in Resolve, Nuke etc.
I think Resolve actually honors the forward matrix. At least Resolve 10 did last time I checked in the beginning of 2014.
@cpc - I think it might still do (I need to check) but we still need the color matrix tags to do the job to ensure better compatibility across apps.
I'm sure the Adobe matrix is solved from actual spectral sensitivity measurements - I would love to do this but I don't have the funds for the lab gear required to measure - i.e. CamSpecs etc. I think the calibration (i.e. print intent) is not best suited for video, even though I know colorists who would kill to get DSLR color from some digital cinema cameras.
BMD, Digital Bolex, Convergent Design (FS700, FS7), Kinefinity etc don't use forward matrices. The problem is only significant to Magic Lantern Raw Video and when you try to use only one Adobe color matrix in Adobe apps without the second CM or forward matrix tags being filled (i.e. as with ML raw2dng source code) because the Adobe coefficients can and will produce out of gamut color (i.e. clipped neon signs, blown headlights, clipped highlights, crushed color) plus they are, by default, over saturating to ~109% - Eric Chan and John Knowles eluded to some of these things on the Adobe forums.
The color matrices need to achieve several things to remove the need for FMs, HSV or embedded ICC profiles (all/some of which will be ignored in a lot of apps).
Finding sensor chromaticity is fairly simple using DCRaw/ArgylCMS and solving color calibrated matrices is then a series of mundane matrix calculations but I want to throw something else into the mix and control saturation roll off as happens in the Alexa when using it's Film matrix.
I'm 100% sure I can build a better standard reference Rec709 color matrix set for MLV and produce uniform color across all MLV shooting cameras - we can then get away from the Adobe 'look' and any copyright issues - ML devs don't seem too keen to use the full set of Adobe matrices in ML source code anyway.
Once again great read and definitely interesting details which are important factors for many of us to know & also makes a lot sense.
Perhaps this is why I'm sticking with Adobe apps along with MLVFS to get the most out of color grading, for now.
I am 110% confident that you can and WILL build a better standard ref Rec709 color matrix set for MLV's for all supported cameras.
Also thanks for your tips n tricks from my thread/post few days ago. I'll definitely get to the bottom of using OCIO along with certain plugins within AE.
Much appreciated and keep up your eagerness on this project(s)!
QuoteQuoteand produce uniform color across all MLV shooting cameras
:)
QuoteI think Resolve actually honors the forward matrix. At least Resolve 10 did last time I checked in the beginning of 2014
Really, I had no idea. Good information.
QuoteWe recommend using .MLV instead of .raw and extracting/converting DNG from .mlv files with either raw2cdng (PC) or MLVFS (Mac) as they embed deeper metadata.
@Andy600
How about mlrawviewer?? .mlv files converted with mlvrawwiver embeds the camera model, F-number, focal lenght,...etc but i don't see any of them in DNGs converted with raw2cdng... please enlighten me?
@Ali Oliya - Unfortunately there is presently no single raw2dng app that embeds all possible metadata but we recommend those apps as we feel color is critical and they embed a full set of Adobe matrices. Other tags can be added using Exiftool if they are critical to your workflow.
There is nothing fundamentally wrong with MLRawViewer's FFMpeg video export as MLRV uses DCRaw (actually Adobe's) D65 color matrices and DCRaw's xyz2rec709 primaries matrix but if you export DNG files then debayer them in any app that is built for CinemaDNG (i.e. most apps) you will get incorrect color for 2 reasons.
CinemaDNG, apart from having specific movie related meta (timecode etc) differs slightly when it comes to color processing than DNG standard which is aimed at raw stills processing. The main difference being that the inclusion of Forward Matrices (white balanced camera RGB to XYZ D50 PCS) is omitted from the CinemaDNG standard and there is no requirement for app devs to include the ability to read/use the forward matrix tags - Some apps will support them, some will not.
In DNG standard, and if the Forward Matrix tags are not included, the color matrices should have the white point chromatically adapted to XYZ D50 - As CinemaDNG is a subset of DNG this requirement carries over and is therefore mandatory because Forward matrices are not described in CinemaDNG - i.e. everything required must be done by the color matrix tags - this is why Blackmagic, Digital Bolex, Kinefinity and other DNG shooting cameras do not have forward matrices.
XYZ D50 (PCS) is used for connecting color spaces, devices and other color related processing in nearly all apps and is used in/by .ICC profiles which is what Adobe bases most of it's apps on but Adobe has Camera Raw and allows camera profiles - these can have forward matrices to transform the white balanced RGB primaries to PCS.
The DCRaw matrix used in ML raw2dng source code is actually 1/4 of a set of Adobe color and forward matrices and only work correctly if used with a forward matrix (and if the app supports forward matrices) - if the forward matrix tags are not used then, according to the DNG (and CinemaDNG) standard, the color matrix must have a D50 adapted white point - DCRaw color matrix 1 tag has an unadapted white point (i.e. it needs a forward matrix) but there is no relevant forward matrix to handle the required transform to PCS - even if there was it would likely be ignored in apps adhering to CinemaDNG standard.
When using only the single 'unadapted' DCRaw matrix, the resulting color difference can be significant depending on scene lighting. Daylight shots should look reasonably correct but will appear colder if the image is then white balanced using the As Shot WB multipliers. The color of shots under other lighting conditions is a crap shoot as there is no second color matrix to tell the raw reader/debayering app how the camera sees light/color under a different illuminant (i.e. it's spectral sensitivity). When you white balance an image, it should not significantly sacrifice the look/temperature of scene lighting to obtain neutrality.
You will see the difference when we publish our alternative color matrix sets for ML cameras. Each set provides 2 , independent, normalized primary matrices with Bradford adapted whitepoint. They should render color the same regardless of the debayering app (without requiring forward matrices) and, because the source white point is in the correct place (PCS) to begin with, your app's white balance temperature controls will work correctly, following the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planckian_locus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planckian_locus). It will be up to ML devs if they want to implement what we provide.
I wonder if I can use this log profile in anyway with negative film (medium format) scanned. I would love to batain somethibng similar to cineon where the data is stored in log format, directly corresponding to density of the original negative. Because raw scan are linear I might be able to save them as tif or dng files and then apply the Cinelog profile. The color correction would take place in Resolve.
@theartofweb - It depends on how you scan the negatives. You could just save the scans to cineon files or DPX. Saving as DNG could add bayer artifacts unless it's demosaiced DNG (basically a TIFF). Cinelog is based on Cineon which is a log encoding/representation of film print density but built for a linear digital negative source (i.e. it works in a reverse way to film), so as is, it's main functions will likely be little use to you because you have the real thing, real film that is effectively log (not linear) and you can just use Cineon tools/plugins to apply the black and white points plus gamma.
Cinelog print emulation looks may be useful - infact, on reversed scanned film they can look epic. We don't (yet) support film scan input in the main products but we can certainly provide a good set of tools for you to work with scanned film negatives, emulate color reversal film, emulate certain print film stocks and build any transfer functions or colorspace transforms you may want/need. It's an area we are moving into.
@Andy600
Very helpful and comprehensive reply! thank you
QuoteIt depends on how you scan the negatives. You could just save the scans to cineon files or DPX. Saving as DNG could add bayer artifacts unless it's demosaiced DNG (basically a TIFF). Cinelog is based on Cineon which is a log encoding/representation of film print density but built for a linear digital negative source
The scanner I use can't either save to cineon nor dpx files. Its raw scans are linear, and I'm able to save them as tiff or dng files. So, all in all its a linear digital negative source. Could I ingest Resolve with these raw scans and apply a bmd-to-cinelog input lut?
@theartofweb - TBH I would have to see a scan in whatever format you save it as to be able to tell you a good workflow and whether Cinelog would be of any use to you. I've worked with actual Cineon 35mm and 16mm film scans in the past but these were from the color prints. I've not worked with medium format negs from a flatbed scanner (I presume it's a flatbed!?) but there will be some common ground so I could work something out for you if Cinelog doesn't work in it's current form.
@Ali Oliya and for anyone that's interested
I've done a little more research and, according to Eric Chan from Adobe, the color matrices are already using a D50 white point (the DNG spec only specifies XYZ so I had assumed it was using the camera native white point with the white point adaptation handled by the forward matrix). This means the Forward matrices are just simple color correction matrices, probably fine-tuning hue rotation (a linear adjustment) to some training data (probably reference data from a IT8 color chart). This gets the primaries into the right ballpark with the HSV tables used for targeted corrections of specific hues, or a look, picture style emulation and to correct any out-of-gamut color.
The Adobe color matrices are not nomalized (because they use forward matrices to do the job) and this means, in the absence of forward matrices there will be gamut and saturation issues with the DCRaw matrix - normalizing the Adobe color matrix doesn't really work well - probably why they recommend using a forward matrix but you can find the chromaticity of the camera and it's adapted D50 WP (after normalizing) using:
XYZP=(Mnpm⋅Identity Matrix)T
then
xyp=XYZ_to_xy(XYZP)
and
XYZw=(Mnpm⋅[1,1,1])T
then
xyw=XYZ_to_xy(XYZw)
(npm = normalized primary matrix)
I have used this method to correlate with our own training data to produce a new set of all-in-one (actually 2) color matrices but I probably need to fine tune them (mainly for white balance calibration) and that will mean ML using different CameraCalibration matrices. I'll publish provisional matrix data for a couple of cameras later today for users to try.
And Andy I will post the c100mk2 colour chart videos today for you today. Finally have some downtime.
@dubzeebass - great! :)
In the absence of an official IDT for the camera I'll see if I can work out a color correction matrix to ACES primaries (a temporary IDT if you will) - this should enable easier matching but it will not be perfect (if it is it will be sheer luck).
If possible, can you also let me know the exact color temp you shoot/shot the chart under?
Andy,
I am about to buy your cinelog colorspace.
I have shoot raw using magic lantern on a Canon 5D mark III. I kind of understood there were problem with RawMagic converting into DNG. What is the best option to convert from .mlv to DNG ?
How about Mlrawviewer ? Is there some special settings to use ?
Thanks for your input.
Alex
@alexidoia - RawMagic isn't supported by ML due to licensing issues but you shouldn't have any problems if you use the ACR version as the embedded metadata is overridden by the camera profile. I don't know what the current RawMagic color DNG meta looks like so I can't say if/how it will affect color in other apps but if it embeds 2 Adobe color matrices (as found in the Adobe DNG converter) there will likely not be any significant color issues.
We (Cinelog) presently recommend either raw2cdng (Windows) or MLVFS (Mac) for extracting DNG files.
Is there a reason why you don't recommend mlrawviewer ?
Thanks anyway.
Alex
Mystic works pretty well for me too, any reason not to recommend that?
I guess my question is :
is there a difference in quality of the DNGs resulting from either one of these converters ?
MLVSF is interesting since it does not really convert but instead gives you a real time access to DNG, which is indeed very good.
As it is the first time I work with CINELOG, I just want to make sure I don't do something bad in the process.
Alex
Inside the dng files you have color matrix and forward matrix information. Dcraw, which is used with mlv_dump and raw2dng uses color matrix 1 and not color matrix 2 and the two forward matrix tags. As said at least CM 1 and 2 will be needed for professional work(controlled output).
One can easily check these tags existing or not with exiftool.
MLVFS can act as an exporter. Simply drag the dng files to desktop or wherever to get them extracted.
It's a little more convoluted when it comes to DCRaw because it uses Adobe color matrix 2 as color matrix 1.
Forward matrices are the preferred method to transform white balanced camera RGB values to XYZ. They can also be used for a degree of linear color correction, so are also used as a CCM to create a look or to move RGB values closer to reference values (i.e. a color chart).
The problem is that forward matrices are not a mandatory tag so some apps will ignore them and to make things even more complicated, CinemaDNG (which is the standard we should be focusing on for raw video) does not include forward matrix tags (although some CinemaDNG readers do support them) - the best thing all round is to have a pair of normalized primary color matrices that will render color values the same in any app that conforms to DNG or CinemaDNG standard.
Don't you just love it when standards are adopted then 'adapted'!? ;D
edit: oh, I didn't even mention the issues you can get with blue LED lights and CMOS sensors ::)
QuoteIt's a little more convoluted when it comes to DCRaw because it uses Adobe color matrix 2 as color matrix 1.
I noticed this as well. How can the dng still look so good I wonder coming from this.
Is there by the way a way to have Davinci resolve recognize as shot neutral white balance values from dng files? Or is it exclusive for ACR? I always get more control with luts and workflow with almost correct wb from scratch.
Honestly, in my pragmatic brain I can,t get all these bits together with color science. Interesting subject though and I really like your idea of creating/calculating personlized ML color matrices.
Cdng vs dng files. What about dng files with tags inserted with exiftool like in cr2hdr-r? Different grouping in subifd than with tiff tag cdng metadata but act as cdng files? Another adaptation ;).
@Danne - If the CalibrationIlluminant tag matches it doesn't really matter what number the color matrix tag is given but if only one matrix is used it will be color matrix 1 and the other tag can be omitted.
re: Resolve WB. If the image was white balanced balanced properly when shooting (as it should be - even when shooting raw), then the As Shot setting in Resolve will be accurate. AFAIK Resolve does read the tag correctly. The As Shot XYZ values are used as an identity matrix to map the raw white point to BMD Film or Rec709 D65 white point. Resolve uses the same math as ACR in terms of XYZ but has different preset temps.
re: cr2hdr-r - no problem if it works but I think we need to adhere strictly to CinemaDNG standard in at least one app for general video use ;) - the matrices will be useable in cr2hdr-r. The benefit over Adobe/DCRaw is in there being 2 spectral sensitivity derived normalized matrices (under A and D65 illuminants) to produce a more accurate default color rendering without using Adobe matrices. This will always be a good starting point for developing either CCM forward matrices or ACES IDTs (which we're working on).
QuoteCinemaDNG standard in at least one app for general video use
Agreed.
QuoteIf the image was white balanced balanced properly when shooting
Gonna investigate some more. I didn,t get the as shot values and the corresponding wb visual like in acr or premiere pro CC. Might be some setting I missed or cdng vs dng problem.
Quotebalanced balanced
So important I had to say it twice :P
hehe, sorry, missed that :)
@Danne - Getting temp and tint offsets to match across apps should work assuming they are based on CIE XYZ but white balancing when shooting is the key.
As Shot, auto and preset temps only work when they are correlated from a neutral reference white point and if that reference (stored as XYZ values under the As Shot Neutral tag) is not correct the apps white balancing functions will shift the white point and/or tint values correctly but with an offset, requiring correction.
The only way to accurately fix incorrect As Shot white balance is using a scope (most accurate method) or the white balance dropper tool on something that the user knows to be neutral - but this too can be wrong because in reality, few things are actually neutral so it's important to have a reference in the shot i.e. a simple gray chat, Macbeth colorchart or even some clapper boards.
Raw shooters need to be educated to shoot a reference chart from the very first take and whenever there is a change of lighting and not to think that 'because it's raw it can be fixed out in post' - it can of course be fixed in post but it takes more time and effort compared to getting it right when shooting. If there is no reference in the scene then neutral can only be an educated guess at best.
BTW, the Adobe DNG specification and SDK are a treasure trove of information ;)
Yes, reference is key. I get outstanding Prores exports and controlled lut implementation if nailing wb from start.
Actually Chmee calculated camera multipliers to As shot values from CR2 files and I also got this working using dcraw applying Chmees dividing calculations and this gives a very close match to the reference CR2, both tint and temperature. Dmilligan I think uses the kelvin and r,g,b information provided from mlv_dump but when looking at the calculations he implemented it is waaay above my math skills. Actually sat down with a math teacher and a coder at work today. They are still scratching their heads. Mlvfs getting the wb right is quite remarkable and from what I know the only workflow which applies camera wb to the dng files? I can,t find/understand the constants to work with at all. Yet. Soon to be vacation ;).
Hello all,
I have tried to export my DNG from my MLV through mlrawviewer and MVLFS.
The DNG produced by MVLFS is twice as big as the DNG produced by mlrawviewer.
Each frame is around 4,2Mb with MVLFS against 2Mb with mlrawviewer.
Can someone explain this to me ?
Thanks a lot.
Alex
MLRawViewer applies "lossless" compression.
See this post: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9560.msg142928#msg142928
Andy,
I am working with cinelog and am following your guide.
I am at the stage where I can fine tune my WB. You say it is time to get it right as this will be permanent.
This is something I am not sure about.
We are preparing prores export to be able to edit in our favorite NLE. Okay
But when the editing is done, we will come back in Resolve and get rid of the prores to work again on our DNG files, right ?
It is then not that a big deal if we dont set the WB correctly at this stage, right ?
Or am I missing something ?
Alex
If someone could confirm me that the prores files will only be used for editing and that I will swap them with the DNG at the end, that would be cool.
@Andy600:
Question(s) is there a quicker way to copy and paste OCIO's settings for each clip similar to what I'm doing in this clip below?
https://vimeo.com/129978142 (https://vimeo.com/129978142)
Also I'm starting to learn/feel its 'sweet spot' of 5D3's sensor when using Cinelog-C -- is it normal to shoot slightly underexposed (1/2 to 3/4 sometimes one full stop) in order to compensate for easier and smoother post workflow specifically for Cinelog-C.
I find it rather difficult to try and Match the scenes together with non dual ISO and dual ISO files -- is this to be expected and is probably a good idea to stick with NON DUAL ISO MLV for the most part unless you want the full DR, correct (Not sure if the color matrices are the same with Dual ISO and Regular MLV files)?
Lastly, is there any way for me to instead of exporting ProRes in Cinelog-C and just save as Adobe Link Project to try and open in PP because it doesn't seem to work on my end with PP -- thus forcing me to export ProRes every time, hmmm?
Thanks!
@alexidoia - You can of course work with Cinelog in a proxy workflow as you are describing but doing so will not offer any real benefits in terms of final quality and grade capability. Proxy workflows actually complicate things and increase both the amount of time required to achieve a new primary grade and add significant load to your CPUs/GPUs that could otherwise be used for additional nodes, plugins etc plus there is more scope for things to break.
Using Cinelog in a digital intermediate (DI) workflow splits the initial heavy-load process of debayering plus white balance and exposure fine tuning, from the later grading part and, if you export Cinelog-C as ProRes 444 or XQ, you will have the benefit of NLE-friendly smaller files that can be graded just as much as the raw images plus a very high quality log master for archiving - you can even revert Cinelog-C encoded video to a scene linear debayered image for VFX etc without any significant loss.
If you think about hi-end cinema cameras with built-in log profiles such as Slog, Log-C, Canon log etc, they all use the same process described above in the camera itself BUT you must always set exposure and white balance correctly before hitting record. Fixing an incorrect, baked-in white balance is somewhat limited by the codec and can be difficult. With raw recording you are simply deferring a lot of things to post where you usually have more time, freedom and finer controls but debayering, white balance and exposure tweaks are still required - debayering images eats CPU/GPU cycles.
@DeafEyeJedi
1) select all clips and create a single timeline then add an adjustment layer (at the top) - you then only need to add one instance of the OCIO plugin. It will affect everything below it.
2) there is no sweet spot when it comes to Cinelog-C and you shouldn't be exposing for it. You should always expose using the raw meters then adjust the exposure slider in ACR accordingly.
3) re: Dual ISO - Cinelog-C isn't designed for the DR that can be achieved with Dual ISO. Cinelog-C has a maximum linear-to-log transfer of ~13.5 f-stops (Cineon) and sometimes Dual ISO images will exceed this. I would suggest exporting DUAL ISO shots as Log-C which is the same in terms of primaries but has around 1 stop more latitude. You can then transform to Cinelog-C if you want to use any of the Cinelog-C rec709 or film look luts but you will probably find they work well on HDR/Dual ISO shots in Log-C without transforming to Cinelog-C.
4) Camera matrices should be the same for MLV and Dual ISO - they are camera specific.
5) Which version Adobe SW are you using? Have you tried opening the linked project without any plugins applied, then add the OCIO plugin(s) in PP.
Thanks @Andy600 for your valuable pointers once again -- greatly appreciated!
Here's another surprise from this tiny M that I almost just decided to sell (only because I find PDR a PITA) but until I recently used MLVFS with your remarkable Cinelog-C luts...
'Malbec' -- MLV shot on EOS-M w Nikkor 50 1.4 AI (Cinelog-C + 2 LUTS) (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15331.msg149353#msg149353MLV%20shot%20on%20EOS-M%20w%20Nikkor%2050%201.4%20AI'Malbec'%20--%20MLV%20shot%20on%20EOS-M%20w%20Nikkor%2050%201.4%20AI%20(Cinelog-C%20+%202%20LUTS))
Not too shabby for a $200 camera after-all...
lol
@Andy600:
Hi Andy, how's progress with the Cinelog website going? Any chance the Community and Tutorials sections of the Lut Bank will be available soon?
*More fun stuff from 70D w Cinelog-C*
https://vimeo.com/130960511
https://vimeo.com/130843632
https://vimeo.com/130843633
Screenshots/Workflow in this post (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=14309.msg149652#msg149652).
Hey!
Can anyone tell me where I need to install the Cinelog V.3 Digital Camera profiles folder in order for it to work in Adobe camera Raw?
I'm using Windows 7.... I have tried Application Data/Adobe/Camera Raw/Settings and Camera Profiles, but when I go into ACR it only wants XMP files. The files in the pack are DCPs...
I can't access the online user guide for some reason
Cheers
Terry Tibbs.
@Terry Tibbs - emailed you :)
@Terry Tibbs:
Responded to your other thread here (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15367.msg149764#msg149764here).
Thanks DeafEyeJedi.
What should I call you for short?
I've responded with thanks and another question. Fancy a look? I'm not sure how to hotlink it here.
I can copy and paste if you like!
Andy, sorry for badgering you so much. I really think I'm almost there though, and thanks for all your help! :)
Hi chaps.
Last night I got footage into Premiere and it matches pretty closely.
Can anyone just confirm to me that on PC the best output render for me when trying to match C300 C-Log with my 5DMKIII would be Avid DNxHD 444? I'm assuming it's either this or Avid DNxHD 185.
Also, with my 5D is the OpenColourIO output Cinelog-C? Pretty sure DeafEyeJedi has confirmed this, just double checking.
It's the former question I am most unsure about. The match is pretty good, I just need to mess with the Three Way Colour Converter a little to get it spot on.
If these two things are correct, I am basically ready to rock and roll!
Anyone? XxX
How do you get canon log to match with cinelog-c? I have a c100 mk2.
@Andy - have managed to get a good match for my 5DMKIII to the C300 footage so thanks a lot and thanks to everyone else who helped me with this as well as the noise issues.
@Dubzeeebass I'm not really qualified to answer this but if you're a Cinelog owner I'd say it's somewhere in your input and output settings in OpencolourIO...
Sorry, I didn't mean with LUTs, I figured you had some colour tweaks in Resolve or Photoshop to approximate them.
@Dubzeeebass I don't mean with LUT's either. (I think) I mean when trying to match the output with OpenColourIO from After Effects.
For example, I'm trying to match my 5DMKIII footage with Canon C300 footage, and to do that I'm using Cinelog and OpencolourIO.
The LUT I am using is Film Convert and that comes later.
I am going to buy Cinelog-C and have a question. Should I buy this SW again if I upgrade my PC? And is it possible to install this SW on two PC?
No yes
Does anyone here know how to install OpenColorIO for PP CC?
I tried to open Project (from AE) in PP and I get a pop up window saying that 'I am missing AE.OpenColorIO.plugin'.
However, in which I did install the OCIO plugin in a plugin folder in content directory for PP CC but it says it needs to be in a video filter folder so I'm not sure where to locate that -- hmmm?
Thanks!
I understand you are a busy bee, @Andy600 - it's actually a good sign that you are because then that means there's another update coming soon!
FYI... I am off for the next 4 days and would like to get myself more familiar with your products on Cinelog-C -- especially the REC709 FM 3D LUTS... So good that I don't even need to use NR with ACR nor Neat Video... Good job on that, Andy!!!
Tho, Sometimes I often find myself having to lower down the opacity by 10-20% to smooth out the contrast a bit more within LUT Utility in FCPX.
No big deal though because I am learning everyday with how useful FCPX can be especially coming from FCP7.
However, it seems more realistic to try and use Adobe Dynamic Link to skip the rendering part of Cinelog-C in PR4444XQ from AE and go straight to PP in order to color grade & edit right off the bat but not sure how to bypass this so called bug w OCIO plugin for PP since I asked you about it and haven't heard back yet.
But then again I often tell myself that perhaps it's even more ideal to already have a set of PR4444XQ files in Cinelog-C and it'll always be flat & ready for me to use again as the starting point later on. At this setting I feel it can be just as good as archiving the original MLV's right? lol
TBH, I'm just basically sending a friendly reminder that I'll be standing by and hopefully hear back from you sooner rather than later.
So excuse my chirping!
Hi everyone! Wow awesome thread. Read basically the entire 26 pages. Lots of great info. Thanks Andy600 for so much technical and practical advice. I am very close to making a purchase of cinelog, but had a few questions:
1. You keep mentioning setting correct white balance while shooting. Just wondering what this means and what settings I should select in camera and then in Resolve to achieve proper WB?
2. I have an x rite color checker chart and Kodak 18% grey card and would like to know the best practices when filming a scene?. I have been filming the chart for every single shot, is this necessary? Also, it appears that the camera calibration panel with the chart throws the purpose of your Luts off, no? Just trying to understand how or if a color checker and grey card should be used in a production to post (resolve) workflow, using cinelog.
3. I've read and understand all of the concepts / pros you've outlined, regarding a raw to log intermediate workflow. But in a perfect world, where CPU / GPU and HDD capacity / speed are non issues, wouldn't archiving and grading the raw files / dngs be ideal? IF I don't need to grade and create intermediates of every shot and rather just spit out super rough proxies, edit (I'm the editor) and then only grade my edited timeline, then wouldn't I be saving time, by not setting white balance and exposure for every shot? Does that make sense? If I screwed up white balance / exposure somehow, it's not a necessarily simple fix, right? Also, what if some years down the road, new technology or techniques inevitably arrive, I'd probably be better with a digital negative, then log "print"' for archive, no?
Anyway thanks for all of your amazing thoughts and helping us all.
Great questions @swordinhand!!!
Even though I am not Andy but I will do my best sharing from experience and unfortunately I cannot run Resolve on my mac's as of yet (keeps crashing due to unsupported graphic cards) so I use all the other Adobe CC apps along with FCPX which works well for me.
1) I do believe there are more than one ways to achieve this basically for me -- I set WB & Exposure on Camera and then once am in the process of achieving flat log's with Cinelog-C (I do this in AE with Smart Import 2 along with OpenColoroIO) & ACR (to set WB to 'custom' as well as applying Cinelog-C .dcp for certain camera models) which works really well in exporting beautiful flat looking ProRes4444XQ files and then from there you will always have a whole set of footage ready to use as starting point prior to grading in NLE.
2) Often times, I do use a Kodak 18% grey card (if I have it with me on set) but I then double check and confirm WB in ACR (even if it is correct -- I would still need to enable WB to "Custom") in order to get Cinelog-C to respond properly to the color-matrices within DNG's during PR4444XQ export all from AE.
3) I do think it may be more ideal to have every shot to have at least both correct WB/Exposure in order to save time like you said but wouldn't that also be the reason why most of us try our best to set the correct WB/Exposure prior to pressing record on camera, right? I'm sure you thought of this too but I also understand the fact that years down the road from now new techs are going to keep coming and revolve with time.
But in my gut it is telling me that MLV is going to be around for a very long time with good reasons. I often times tell myself to use the log print w Cinelog-C (PR4444HQ) and use them for archival purpose but then again I am not too fond of deleting digital negatives (MLV/DNG's) so if I really love the shot/take then I'd keep both for safety purpose but that's jm2c.
Until then I'll let @Andy600 give you his infamous deep technical and practical advices in which I look forward to as well!
Sorry for my absence but I have a very heavy workload at the moment. I'll get around to answering your questions sometime in the next day or so.
Anyway, for anyone that doesn't know, DaVinci Resolve 12 beta is out https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve (https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/davinciresolve).
In my initial tests, it's a little more GPU/memory hungry than previous versions but has some fantastic features. The key feature that I was looking forward to is Resolve Color Management and it works great! - plus it also proves the absolute accuracy and resolution of Cinelog-C luts.
Although Resolve 12 does somewhat obsolete 'some' of what Cinelog-C (Resolve version) does, there are still those who will struggle to run V12 (especially on laptops and low-mid spec PCs) and others who wish to use our additional transforms (Film matrix, ACES2065-1, Slog, REDColor variants etc etc) and Cinelog Rec709 and Film Look Luts, so we will keep the product in development alongside Cinelog's forthcoming updates for ACR/AE/Premier Pro, Speedgrade and others. We have also been working hard on Magic Lantern color specific issues, ACES IDTs for Magic Lantern shooting cameras and non-raw input transforms for picture styles.
Part of why Cinelog-C luts have proved so popular is in how it transforms raw DNG images (debayered to BMD Film colorspace) to Alexa Log-C RGB primaries - a favorite colorspace among a lot of colorists.
With Resolve 12's new color management you can now transcode MLV footage to Alexa Log-C - this produces an identical signal to what you get when using Cinelog's BMD Film to Cinelog-C shaper lut in previous versions of Resolve.
You need to enable Color management in the Resolve control panel then select:
Input colorspace: Linear
Timeline colorspace: (doesn't really matter but leave this on Rec709)
Output colorspace: Alexa Log-C
Correctly exposed MLV footage will usually require a push of ~1-F-stop but is wholly dependent on your own shooting practices. Check the exposure by temporarily selecting Rec709 (2.4 gamma) as output colorspace before changing back to Alexa Log-C before rendering - we recommend ProRes 444, ProRes XQ or DNxHR 444 for digital intermediates (DI).
For transcoding jobs it is important to NOT alter curves, saturation etc etc - only change white balance if needed using the Camera Raw panel.
Once you have your rendered DI's you can import them for editing/grading. Just remember to select Alexa Log-C as the input colorspace (if using Resolve 12 color management for Rec709 output).
For any footage where you previously transcoded using our BMD Film to Cinelog-C luts you can select Alexa Log-C as input colorspace and use Resolve 12 color management to set a non-clipping Rec709 output transform - 2.4 gamma is standard ;)
If you wish to use Cinelog-C film look luts you can either use a non-color managed timeline or set input, timeline and output colorspaces to Alexa Log-C (although I still need to double check this).
I have a lot more testing to do but I'll post any tips, tricks, gotchas etc as and when I find them and be back here to answer any previous questions. Our updates will be out shortly.
Hi Andy, thanks for the update. The Color Management tools are greyed out in my project settings and I can't find the exact option to turn them on (as you mentioned in your post). Any hints? :)
@DanHaag - You need to select 'YRGB Color Managed' in the main settings panel - hint: it's where you would also select ACES
Mucho thanks, pointed me in the right direction! ;)
A bit off-topic: What input would you suggest for GoPro-Cineform (shot Protune / native white balance)? I shoot a lot of interviews with ML raw and GoPro. Just figured out one can select different color inputs for individual clips/timelines etc. so I could set a different one for each camera.
@DanHaag - Resolve 12 input transforms are VERY specific to the colorspace of the footage being transformed so it's not usually a good idea to use one that is not specific to the log curve/gamut of the camera. For the moment I would suggest choosing Linear and use the curves to get the image gamma and levels to approximately the same as your MLV footage.
ProTune log is quite different to any of the input colorspaces available in V12 and will still need a precision lut to accurately transform to a scene-referred colorspace - there is a ProTune to Cinelog-C lut in the next Cinelog-C release that makes GoPro Protune footage compatible with a Cinelog-C/Log-C timeline.
Right on, I've been looking forward to your LUT ever since you've announced working on it! Best thing I've found online so far is this ProTune -> BMD (http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?9162-Go-Pro-LUT-Protune-RAW-WB-to-BMDfilm) conversion LUT and even though it doesn't often quite work as intended it gives my GoPro footage an overall better look. Have high hopes for your take on it, Andy! Much needed addition!!! ;)
Nice tips Andy!
Hi Andy,
I'm considering purchasing Cinelog but I have a couple of concerns. I've tried using MLV to record raw but I find it too unreliable as I get bad frames once in a while. But when I use raw_rec, it is rock solid. So I'd like to use Cinelog with raw_rec but I understand you don't recommend that or it just won't work or come up on the ACR selections. Even though I'm using raw_rec, would Cinelog be better than VisionLog? Is it possible to get a version of Cinelog that will work with raw_rec on a 5D3?
Another issue is the master file export using AE. I've read through this entire post and I believe you recommend using DNxHD 444 to export the master file in AE on a Windows 7 PC. However there are issues when doing that because when you select Trillions of colors while selecting the DNxHD 444 codec, it exports a corrupted file. But if you leave it at Millions of colors, everything goes well but I'm not sure if it's actually exporting a 10 bit DNxHD 444 file. You can see another post about this issue here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15098.0 (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15098.0)
Do you have any recommendations on this?
Thanks!
Gary
Hello savideoman,
You can buy mine, cause i dont use them.. @andy600: is it ok if i sell mine? How dowd that work? Do i need your agreement?
@SAVideoman - We recommend MLV because of the deeper metadata it embeds vs .raw but it's all down to how the DNG files are extracted from the container. Apps like raw2cdng and MLVFS will write new color related metadata which is important if you use a non-ACR based raw workflow (i.e. Resolve, Nuke, Fusion, Baselight etc etc).
If you are using ACR it will not matter as the profiles ignore embedded matrix data and use their own. At present the ACR version expects a camera specific tag but some converters embed a generic 'Canikon' camera model tag which means any camera specific profiles will be unavailable in ACR (including Cinelog) - The forthcoming update addresses this with an additional set of profiles for 'Canikon' tagged DNG files but you should only install the 'Canikon' profile(s) that are specific to your camera - if not you will have lots of profile options but only one with the correct color meta and lots of room for mistakes.
Incorrect or missing metadata can usually be re-written using Exiftool but this can be time consuming process. If the raw2dng app only embeds the default single matrix (5D mark III) it will only produce good color if the footage was shot on a 5D III and more specifically, in daylight. The additional matrices embedded by raw2cdng, MLVSF correctly map XYZ colorspace to your camera sensors native RGB (used for accurate white balance) and the forward matrices are there to 'calibrate' the white balanced raw color - but even with all 4 matrices you can still get out of gamut color resulting in clipping, hue twists and other nasties - this is where camera profiles or luts come into play.
re: DNxHD - DNxHR is better. I think you can now download the codec pack from Avid.
re: The Trillions of colors issue - yes, correct (I didn't update the post, sorry). You would select millions of colors - this will export a 10bit file with 444 chroma subsampling. You can check the file using Mediainfo or similar apps.
Feel free to contract me using the contact page of our website if you have any further questions - whatever the issue we will do our best to help.
@swinxx - Sorry, Cinelog is non-transferable for obvious reasons. Of course, there is nothing to stop you selling your pack but the buyer would not be registered or receive updates - I would urge you to hold onto your copy/registration as the next update is significant, plus we have software products in development where you will receive a customer discount plus some 3rd party discounts we are negotiating for Cinelog users.
Good news! Any word on C100mk2 biz?
@dubzeebass - The short answer is yes. I'll be in touch shortly.
It's been a big part of our work over the past couple of months but we are still a little way off from being able to give you exactly what you need - I will need a couple more things from you for this (I'll email you).
Actually, your C100 request and our subsequent work has exposed some very useful things about Canon DSLR and C-series internal color science that we suspected but didn't fully understand and this will eventually benefit ML - we may even be able to produce a true Canon log picture style at some point, not some psuedo, log-like facsimile.
I'm going to get technical again (sorry) and start talking about ACES and matching to other C-series cameras because it may help you and others to understand what we have to do.
The shots you provided were unfortunately over/under exposed for the exacting requirements of shooting Canon Log. Correct exposure is critical to preserve dynamic range and white balancing must be performed to a proper reference as you are baking this into the video file and don't have the luxury we have with raw images.
FYI - There is a very specific procedure for obtaining accurate exposure when shooting Canon log on any C-series camera, as explained here by Jem Schofield - http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/eos_c300_tutorials_gallery.shtml. If you follow this you will get perfect exposure every time, if you don't you will always have issues.
Unfortunately, we don't have a C100 MkII to obtain a controlled lab reference (I'm still trying to source a rental here in Latvia), I had to base all the calculations on the color and white balance coefficients already available for the Mk1 (as per the official Canon ACES IDT) and some correctly exposed and balanced C100 and C100 MkII original stock footage to fully understand the MKII's colorspace.
Fortunately, the difference in color appearance between the MkI (and C300 MkI) and MkII can be neutralized by scaling RGB channels (basically changing white balance offsets) to achieve visually identical color with low DeltaE - we can assume the remaining difference is mainly down to noise (improved sensor in the MkII) but you will see pretty much identical color - this solved the first part of the problem and allowed us to build a MkII ACES IDT - basically we did Canon's job for them.
The next part is where things get really complex - matching color and levels to ML raw footage.
At present, MLV DNG files (from Raw2CDNG and MLVFS) have their color assigned by forward matrices which are linear and target an Adobe reference (I want to change this to a common, easily obtainable reference such as a Colorchecker) - the color in the C series cameras have (as far as we can tell) a non-linear color profile applied somewhere in the signal path before the IRE scaled lin-to-log transform happens (the IRE scaling is what makes Canon log and Cineon technically incompatible BTW so we had to factor this into our work).
This color profile stage essentially means an unknown amount of color values are mapped individually to remove/lessen any out-of-gamut issues or for aesthetic reasons (possibly to make it look more film like/cinematic) - this helps with things like spikes in the spectral emissions of certain light sources (i.e. LEDs) so already, color matching these non-linear to linear assigned sets of RGB values is not a simple procedure - it requires a lut somewhere in the pipeline.
Without the keys to Canon's lab, it would be impossible to exactly invert the color mapping that happens in the C100 MkII to obtain a true scene-referred linear signal (as we can do with raw footage) so we need to match MLV footage to the MkII (or vice versa) with some 'educated' guess work based on what we know about Canon color science and available data (i.e. the C100 MkI ACES IDT).
So, using our MkII ACES IDT we can be reasonably confident that we can transform C-Log MkII footage to scene-referred linear RGB values and because the DNG files can easily be debayered to scene referred values we can then color match them. The significant color matching part should ideally be handled by a trivial 3x3 matrix (as this will not introduce artifacts or errors) but to do any of this we need an very accurate chart reference shot from the C100 that is as close to perfect white balance and exposure as possible (and preferably shot with a very good lens) to enable us to calculate the required RGB offsets. Any remaining inconsistencies in reference color values can then be handled by a 3D color correction lut containing float values before a final transform to an output referred or log colorspace i.e. a signal that can be rendered or graded.
That covers a 'theoretical' color matching procedure for 2 cameras but we have to remember that even though we can obtain scene-referred values from the MLV DNG files it will not necessarily be reference-accurate or look nice when viewed in a display colorspace (i.e. sRGB/Rec709 etc if we only use the XYZ matrix and a 1D transfer function). The DNG files should also be color matched to a known reference. Ideally this would be handled by the the forward matrix tags but no sensor is perfect and a forward matrix transform can never fully match reference levels - infact it may make things worse plus forward matrices do not form part of the CinemaDNG spec so you can't guarantee all apps will render the same values.
Just as the in-camera profile of the C-Series cameras 'tweak' color, we need to apply the same logic to raw files if we are to match them and this means matching both cameras to the same reference values (i.e. a color chart) and not match one camera to another. In practice this approach brings actual color matching of 2 different cameras 'perceptually' close to all but the untrained eye. The downside is that you will lose some of the camera's color aesthetic so it is always a trade-off.
Got it thanks. I can re-send you the files with IRE 32 as mid grey if you wish when I get home. Will that help?
I can also shoot some test footage for you from C100II per your request.
Just let me know which lens you prefer that suits your needs.
Even if it has to be a Zeiss...
Yeah I've got a Zeiss 100mm makro that is probably the sharpest lens I've ever used at f4.
@dubzeebass - Yes, that would be great. It's best done in daylight if you don't have controlled lighting and must be white balanced - I suggest exposure > white balance > re-check exposure and adjust if necessary. If you also have a greyscale chart it would allow me to pull a good reference level but I'll need the colorchecker shot too. Middle grey on the colorchecker is the 4th patch along from white (directly under yellow).
@DeafEyeJedi - If you can also do this it will help - a Zeiss prime would be ideal.
The colorchecker needs to be fairly large in the frame and focused. Ideally it should be face-on i.e. no perspective distortion if you can do it without casting a shadow. Also, try not to use ND.
Thanks :)
Andy,
100% honest question. If I don't understand ANY of the technical stuff you've been explaining, would cinelog still be beneficial to me?
@cmccullum - Probably but it depends what you want to do and what app(s) you use (Resolve, After Effects etc etc).
Cinelog is basically a colorspace management toolset and beneficial to transcoding your DNG files to a smaller but very high quality log video file. It also comes with some look luts and basic guides and I'm available for advice on shooting and workflow practices. If you know what you want to achieve or have problems in your current workflow I'll give you an honest answer as to whether or not Cinelog will be of any use to you.
If you need anything explained in simpler terms just let me know and I'll try to help you understand everything as best I can.
@Andy600 I've only just recently started exploring raw video with magic lantern, but I've done a few tests and been able to get some pretty cool results using only ACR. So far, I haven't introduced any flicker or other weird artifacts using the ACR sliders to adjust the images as I please. I guess where cinelog really interests me so far is color accuracy. I've only recently started learning about using scopes for correcting/grading, and I still don't REALLY understand what's going on there so most of the CC I've done has been by eye, and ends up looking different between displays (I'm assuming this is pretty much unavoidable).
I guess the short answer is that I don't really know what it is I'm looking for. Just looking to explore options, and the "proper" ways to work with these things, I from what I've read, I feel that using Cinelog might be a good way for me to do some hands on learning about a Proper raw/log workflow. I'm far from a professional colorist (I'm sure that goes without saying), but I think I do a pretty damn good job, and haven't really run into a situation in which I can't do something I'm trying to do. This is pretty all over the place, but I hope it sheds at least some light on where I'm coming from.
Also possibly worth noting, I haven't come across any "looks" (lut or otherwise) that I particularly care for, but I figure people use them, so there must be something to it and I'm trying to find the allure I suppose
Current Workflow:
mlv_rec
mlRawViewer -> DNG (I understand this will have to change)
Import DNG sequence into AE CS6
Correct/Grade/whatever with ACR
Export
Hi Andy,
I'm having some issues regarding the histogram when trying to make Cinelog-C masters.
When adjusting project settings to:
3D Input Lookup Table: [TRANSFORM]_BMD_Film_to_Cinelog-C
3D Video Monitor Lookup Table: [REC709] Cinelog-C to Cinelog REC709 Full
1D Color Viewer Lookup Table: Use Video Monitor Selection
3D Color Viewer Lookup Table: Use Video Monitor Selection
1D Scopes Lookup Table: Use Video Monitor Selection
3D Scopes Lookup Table: Use Video Monitor Selection
The histogram signal is clamped between 128 and 896. What setting is doing this?
If I'm just using the [REC709] Cinelog-C to Cinelog REC709 Full in a node it works fine.(with 3D Video Monitor Lookup Table selection removed)
@Tumble - have you got Resolve set to use Video levels? If so, change it to Data Levels
You can move the Cinelog-C to Cinelog Rec709 Full lut to a track node and bypass or delete it when you are ready to export the log masters. It will do the same job and is what you need to do if you use a monitor calibration lut in the Monitor Lut slot.
Bear in mind the Rec709 Full lut allows overbrights (values that extend beyond what Resolve can display) so it may look like highlights are being clipped on the scopes but once disabled the Cinelog-C log signal will fit nicely into 10bits - this particular Rec709 lut is for when you want to adjust highlight rolloff yourself. The other Rec709 luts have an s-curve to smooth rolloff and keep the signal within the display space - they are tone mapped to look something between Alexa 709 and Sony 709 curves.
@cmccullum
QuoteI've only just recently started exploring raw video with magic lantern, but I've done a few tests and been able to get some pretty cool results using only ACR.
Welcome aboard!
QuoteSo far, I haven't introduced any flicker or other weird artifacts using the ACR sliders to adjust the images as I please.
ACR can cause flicker when there is a significant change in lighting over a few frames. There are some functions of ACR that are dynamic and change from frame to frame when certain controls are used. This is ok for Adobe because ACR's primary function is processing still images. I have had shots that didn't flicker from using the highlight recovery, contrast and other controls but also had shots that do exhibit modulation. If you can live with this then use the ACR controls but it's very difficult to fix later if at all.
QuoteI guess where cinelog really interests me so far is color accuracy. I've only recently started learning about using scopes for correcting/grading, and I still don't REALLY understand what's going on there so most of the CC I've done has been by eye, and ends up looking different between displays (I'm assuming this is pretty much unavoidable).
The scopes are your get-out-of-jail card and give you a visual warning where your eyes or monitor might not indicate any problem. Each scope has a specific purpose and learning to use them is very important for accurate and 'safe' color correction/grading. I say safe because there are very strict standards for broadcast and understanding what the scopes are telling you is 9/10s of the battle. Even if you are not doing broadcast or cinema work you will still benefit from this knowledge especially if you upload to Youtube or Vimeo.
Your video will always look different across different displays for a lot of reasons. Manufactures like to add tweaks to make their models stand out in the showroom. Users tweak the settings to a look they like and then there are the differences between LED, LCD, Plasma, Retina etc etc but fundamentally, each display has a gamut, a colorspace, mostly Rec709/Rec2020 (HD and 4K TVs) or sRGB (computer monitors). A professional reference monitor is very expensive but can be calibrated to display Rec709 or sRGB gamuts (sometimes other colorspaces) accurately with very little error and when you grade with a reference monitor you can be sure that your corrections are also accurate even if the viewer sees a completely different image because of their own TV 'tweaks'.
A good monitor is vital to good grading. At the very least you should calibrate your monitor using something like an X-Rite i1 Display Pro but consumer displays are rarely accurate enough and a lot simply cant be calibrated well. Understanding the scopes will help you a lot when you cant trust your monitor but there really are no shortcuts or cheap solutions.
QuoteI guess the short answer is that I don't really know what it is I'm looking for. Just looking to explore options, and the "proper" ways to work with these things, I from what I've read, I feel that using Cinelog might be a good way for me to do some hands on learning about a Proper raw/log workflow.
Cinelog is certainly an option if you process your DNG files through ACR and want to render high quality log intermediate files but before you make a decision I would suggest having a play with the free DaVinci Resolve 12beta if your computer can handle it and you don't mind learning another system. It has a good color management system builtin and does a lot of what Cinelog-C can do (but not everything). If you don't like it then Cinelog-C for ACR could be very useful to you.
QuoteI'm far from a professional colorist (I'm sure that goes without saying), but I think I do a pretty damn good job, and haven't really run into a situation in which I can't do something I'm trying to do.
Even professionals colorists were once amateurs. If you stick at it there is no reason you cant become one too!:)
QuoteAlso possibly worth noting, I haven't come across any "looks" (lut or otherwise) that I particularly care for, but I figure people use them, so there must be something to it and I'm trying to find the allure I suppose
Looks are purely subjective and you don't have to like them or use them just because everyone else is. There is nothing wrong with being different, infact I would encourage it. Even if you do use a preset or lut you can still make it your own by what you do under it. One bit of advice about luts I will give is to be aware of what exact input colorspace the lut expects because you can get very bad results if the input is wrong.
@Andy600: I'm very sceptical about that "scary flicker" myth. Due to my expirience this occurs only with non-video tools(Lightroom, PS batch conversion).
Can you please share any DNG sequence(along with ACR settings) that introduce flicker with cmccullum's workflow (Import DNG sequence into AE)?
@andy600 thanks for the detailed response. It really helps a lot, and it seems cinelog would be a great addition to any toolset.
@mothaibaphoto In my limited experience, I haven't had any issues using ACR from within AE, but when I first tried shooting raw, I selected and opened all of the individual DNGs in ACR (photoshop/lightroom) and used "select all" to make changes to the entire sequence. This way of working with the DNG sequence caused A TON of flicker, and nastiness so I can say that much. As for the ACR within AE, I'd say it's probably better to trust the many other users, and save yourself the headache
Just wanted to say thanks to Andy and also to highly recommend this to anyone considering it. It's worked a treat for me, and I am not even a DOP.
I'll provide a link to my film when done and you guys can see if you can tell which shots are ML RAW and which are C300!
TT
@Andy600
Did you take note of changes in saturation when profiling cameras with charts? What I mean to say is, different camera models and brands see a different change in saturation levels when exposure is altered. The Alexa registers peak saturation with middle grey at about 35 IRE and maintains that level even as exposure is increased (up to clipping). The Sony F55 doesn't see saturation peak until 65 IRE. As the Alexa has the most convincing film aesthetic of current digital cameras, I was wondering if you had any information with regards to these matters in relation to the 5D Mark III.
By the way, your Cinelog Lut packs have been of great use to me :)
@baldavenger - This is really only relevant to in-camera log or Rec709 capture because CFA raw has no saturation, only measurements of RGGB channels - Saturation, white balance and color are assigned later by DNG metadata and post processing.
I did consider building EI (ISO) linked profiles in the beginning but it proved highly impracticable as you need one profile per ISO multiplied by the number of cameras we support plus the user would have to expose accurately everytime to 18% (you should anyway but many still don't) and choose the relevant profile which can sometimes mean an extra job of extracting metadata for every shot. This would run into hundreds, if not thousands of DCP profiles and Resolve shaper luts so as you can imagine, management of those files alone would be a nightmare for us and the end user.
Part of the reason we chose the Alexa's colorspace was to help manage saturation. Mapped properly, this gamut produces a progressive reduction in saturation from black to white and shapes the colorspace in a way that can't be done with a matrix alone - what you end up with is a gamut that, when viewed in 2D, has a locus much like the horseshoe shape or a triangle with rounded lines you see in CIE diagrams. What this does is give you more room to push relative saturation before clipping occurs i.e. you can get more color and see more gradation between close pixel values when you put the image into a display space (sRGB/Rec709 etc). If you view the colorspace side-on in 3D (i.e. a cube viewer) you see saturation decrease with brightness and lower saturation near black. It also keeps everything in-gamut.
The current V3.0 camera profiles are mainly there to ensure data can be passed from ACR to AE in 16bits without clipping and without using ACR controls - the log curve ensures we can invert the process in AE to produce a linear signal (linear in terms of how OCIO works i.e. HDR with 18% maintained at 18% and 90% white diffuser scaled to 1.0 in float) . ACR is used purely as the debayer with some control over exposure, sharpening, noise reduction and lens corrections. Color is mainly produced by the forward matrices and there are hsv tweaks that can help with correcting out-of-gamut issues that the forward matrices cause when the image is viewed under an ICC display profile. These corrections attempt to keep hue shifts under control and target saturation levels at the locus of display colorspaces otherwise you can see severe clipping caused by spectral spikes in some lighting (i.e. the blue LED issue Sony cameras exhibit). The colorspace transform to Cinelog-C that happens downstream in AE happens in relation to OCIO scene linear which has huge DR and makes sure everything fits into a minimum of 10bits.
As for peak saturation data, we have now built Cinelog-C into a Picture Style for JPEG/H.264 and DPP use (it's currently an internal beta). It is built with reference to 18% gray at base exposure (usually ISO 100) but it should be possible to find what, if anthing, happens to saturation in relation to ISO in Canon DSLRs in logspace. I haven't done this yet and I suspect, as the PS is a static profile, it will have no impact - These are not an Alexa unfortunately but you never know ;) incidentally, we can't offer IE linked Picture Style profiles either as the camera can only hold 3 custom styles at any one time but the Cinelog-C PS will make it very easy for users to mix H.264 with Magic Lantern Raw.
Thank you @Andy600 once again for such a substantial, considered, and technically precise explanation.
My original inquiry was inspired by a couple of articles I read:
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/post/making-the-sony-f55-look-filmic-with-resolve-9.html
http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors-have-in-common.html
I was really just wondering if there was a more specific approach to modifying saturation with 5D Mark III raw footage in Davinci Resolve using the Luma Saturation curve (as featured in the first article). The author claims Canon cameras are similar to Sony when it comes to saturation behaviour, so would the curve used in the article work in a similar way with Magic Lantern footage?
Hi @Andy600,
a couple of points in order to help me to better use cinelog:
1) following your indications, I always use raw2cdng to convert my mlv files to use with cinelog. (davinci resolve luts).
Now, I see that there is a tool under development: "MLVProducer for Windows". Is it possible to use it for conversion? In other words: is its output reliable as raw2cdng?
2) I'd also be interested in purchasing the AE & Premiere Version of the luts since I have to work with Green screen and I am looking for a suitable process:
At the moment my process is:
a) Import DNG into resolve
b) apply Cinelog lut adnd white balance (as you well describe)
c) export in DNxHD applying a Cinelog --> 709 rec output lut because I need to import it in Premiere and match the clips with RGB images of the background imported from photoshop.
d) import 709 dnxhd clips into Premiere, as well with jpg backgrounds
e) eliminate the green screen by a keying plugin
f) edit and export (to Resolve for CC or not)
With this process, I have to use a lot of hard disk space, since I mainly export the dng clips DNxHD both with a Cinelog -> 709Rec (to use with premiere) and one version without the output lut for backup purpose. So I double the used space.
at step c) I'd like to export only the version without the "Cinelog -> 709Rec" output lut
d) import in Premiere and either:
dI) apply a "Cinelog -> 709Rec" lut to the "cinelog" clips in order to have the right "final" curve to work with the jpg background
dII) best: apply a sort of "inversion" lut (also in photoshop, or in premiere) to the images of the background in order to have a "flat" background matching with the "cinelog" clips
This would be the best option, since I could keep working with a Cinelog curve and export to Resolve for a final CC still with the cinelog curve.
Do you think that buying the AE & camera raw version of the Cinelog luts this would be possible?
Would you suggest a better workflow?
Thank you. Cheers. Carlo
.
Phew.............You guys probably should have just kept this in PM.
We, the Magic Lantern development community, prefer open source development. This should be immediately comprehensible, since the development project releases solely under the open source GPL license. The GPL license provides some manner of protection against plagiarism. The GPL license does not prohibit commercial application of said code.
Andy600 has been a significant contributor to this project for some time, and while deep down we probably prefer him to follow the open source nature of the project, the man needs to make a living, and his choice of providing commercial applications based around this project is not up for debate! Let me make this last point absolutely clear. He has a right to make commercial applications based from the Magic Lantern codebase, and the license that this development project is released under, specifically gives him this right.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13335.0
What this development community does not want, is a useful contributor to the project, leaving the project, based solely on personal opinions.
Raw recording is not the reason I contribute to this project, and I only keep up to date enough to try and maintain some knowledge to help others, and to keep an eye on the development progress of this specific function of ML. baldavenger, please do not allow my ignorance regarding raw recording, and all manner of third party development, workflows etc, to be construed as neglect towards contributions you have made towards this project.
I think the only advise I can give you guys from here, is to give each other a wide berth. Respect that you both contribute to the project, and while your contributions differ with regards to the costs involved, the net result is the same, contribution to the community.
Cheers,
Lionel.
I concur with Audionut (for a change) :o
*amen* @Audionut and very well said! [emoji482]
To be honest, i'm not a LUT fanboy either.
And what I see: one man advertise his LUTs and workflow in dedicated topic named "Cinelog - ... and so on". No problem for me.
Next, another man started topic "DaVinci Resolve 12 and ML Raw". http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15801
No more, no less. And what I see inside?
Yes, the same, advertising LUTs and workflow.
Moreover, that topic contains false statements regarding ML RAW.
And when I pointed him, that topic content didn't correspond to theme, he didn't find any better than insult me and asking to shut up.
Yes, everything in that topic for free yet. But what if baldavenger will announce commercial prices for his Mudak LUTs v2.0?
Why to impose all that as the only "true" way and posting so much LOG fiction as not to intend to sell something?
So, @Audionut, please, inspect that topic too.
I'm not sure what your agenda is here mothaibaphoto, but I suggest if you're not a LUT fanboi, then you just refrain from posting in such threads.
This thread needs to find it's way back on topic very fast.
Thankyou @audionut. I appreciate your input and will take your advice.
I would like to point out to all readers, something fundamental about CinelogDCP and our products. We don't actually make products specifically for Magic Lantern. Our focus is aimed at workflow improvements to NLE and color grading applications that do not or did not previously offer enough capability to users of DNG based workflows. We have never used or had anything to do with ML source code but the application of our products has been relevant and useful to Magic Lantern Raw Video in it's DNG state.
I can fully understand the frustration of waiting for updates but we deliberately chose not to go down the incremental path as rushed updates to the products usually leads to error and requires more time to fix. This should not be confused with us doing nothing. The time needed to complete the level of work we set ourselves was vastly underestimated (by me) and this has had a direct knock-on effect delaying our involvement with other parties such as Crumplepop (Koji) and RubberMonkey (FilmConvert).
Even though our products have to date been purely DNG centric, much of our research and development over the last few months has been specifically related to Magic Lantern Raw Video and has produced data that will hopefully be useful to the community and developers of ML raw video apps. This will of course be a contribution under GPL and in keeping with the open source ethos of Magic lantern.
An open conversation about the pros and cons of lut based and non-lut based workflows is a very valid one to have. There is a great deal more to the subject than producing a nice look, especially where colorspace management is concerned.
edit: Incidentally, I'm not sure if it was intentional (probably not) but Mudak translates to something very offensive in Russian.
Back on topic.
This is something very important about Resolve 12 Color Management (RCM) related to DNG files.
Take a look at these images. These are high ISO without any NR and are manually white balanced in Resolve using patch D3 (the most spectrally neutral of the 24 patches shown) . No luts are involved except for BMD Film to Rec709 in the final comparison image).
The first image is how BMD Film looks when debayered using RCM (RCM input set to bypass, workspace and output BMD Film).
(http://i.cubeupload.com/fwk6Vw.jpg)
This is when the image is debayered to BMD Film in normal YRGB mode.
(http://i.cubeupload.com/PLyGuX.jpg)
This is the difference when the non RCM BMD Film patches are viewed against the RCM BMD Film. The outer squares are RCM.
(http://i.cubeupload.com/IV1WwU.jpg)
and finally, as above but with BMD Film to Rec709 lut for a display space comparison.
(http://i.cubeupload.com/MHhxzb.jpg)
Conclusion: RCM does not honor forward matrices but BMD Film YRGB does. RCM sticks rigidly to the CinemaDNG specification and will produce a different color rendering.
If RCM is fully conforming to the CinemaDNG standard the DNG metadata should provide normalized color matrices to comply with the specification - they currently do not.
This is one of the areas of research we followed and we will provide the normalized color matrices to MLV devs shortly.
This however, will not yield a different color rendering and may actually conflict with the inclusion of forward matrices and not pass validation. i.e. there may need to be a decision made as to which standard MLV adheres to because CinemaDNG is slightly different than DNG in terms of recommended color related metadata.
Hi Andy. Why not publish the matrices you created? Would be possible to compile a forked mlv_dump for people to try out with new metadata. It, s a start at least.
We will Danne but please pay attention to the last sentence of my previous post. The matrices must pass DNG validation which means you may (and probably will) have problems when coupling normalized color matrices with forward matrices as you are mixing specifications. Some apps will throw an error and it will almost certainly conflict with Adobe apps (I have experience just that with ACR camera profiles built around normalized matrices).
I have a full set of normalized matrices for every camera and will release the data shortly but I strongly suggest MLV app devs do not jump straight in and release any app to users before thorough testing.
My personal view is that ML Raw Video should adhere to CinemaDNG standard without exception. This would negate the perceived color enhancements of using forward matrices but we have other ways to get the color back - but it's not as flexible as FMs and will likely rely on luts.
Ok, I was thinking for testing purposes only like suggested.
I need to format the data to the correct order for ML source first but I'll do it and post asap.
I should probably dampen any expectations of dramatic color changes because you will likely not see any change except possibly a very minor shift in saturation levels. The color matrices are really only intended for white balancing. The change is merely for specification conformity.
Sounds fine too me.
This one really interesting information, thanks, Andy.
First, please answer: did Rec.709 colorspace produce "correct" colors with current version of MLV? For me this setup looks very Adobe-like, something I'm used for many years. I'm close to completely switch to DR.
Second, if your corrections will be applied to MLV code, I'll be forced to use color managed workflow in DR and Adobe Camera Raw will no more output accurate colors?
A tricky question to answer because 'correct' color is subjective unless you attach it to a specific colorspace.
The actual color you see depends on the app you use to get the DNG or CinemaDNG files and the app you use to debayer the file.
At it's most basic level of metadata (as in original .raw) there is a single color matrix which comes from DCRaw. This in turn came from Adobe Labs (it's the D65 color matrix of Adobe Standard - there is a second color matrix for tungsten but this is not used). The D65 matrix maps non-white balanced sensor RGB values to non-white balanced CIE XYZ (CIE XYZ has a D50 white point). This is means that daylight shots will tend to look very good as the color matrix is based on the sensor being calibrated to typical daylight use.
Adding the second color matrix (Standard A - Tungsten) as would be the case were you to debayer DNGs from raw2cdng or MLVFS in Resolve 12 using RCM will give you more accurate white balancing between daylight and tungsten color temperatures and this can be seen as perhaps the most accurate rendition of color from the camera - but accurate color doesn't necessarily mean nice color, especially if you are used to the additional color processing in DSLR cameras.
In addition to the color matrices which handle white balancing, the DNG specification allows 2 forward matrices. These matrices can be independent or duplicated but their function is to map the white balanced color to white balanced XYZ D50. There is scope in the forward matrices to alter color saturation and hue.
MLVFS and Raw2cdng embed the Adobe Standard matrix set and you effectively get something close to Adobe Standard color but if you were to debayer these files in Resolve 12 using RCM the forward matrices will be ignored - this is correct and is one of the differences between DNG and CinemaDNG specifications.
Adobe Camera Raw works a little differently. The DNG file should contain a meta tag that identifies the camera model and this allows ACR to apply different profiles and override much of the embedded color related metadata. This is versatile and means even an original ML raw image with a single embedded matrix can still produce enhanced color because ACR adds the extra matrices during processing (if selected).
If you use ACR you will be using whatever the camera profiles contains and these profiles can have 4 matrices plus 2 sets of HSV lut tables (one for each illuminant). ACR always passes data to After Effects in sRGB colorspace but alternative colorspaces can be selected if using ACR with Photoshop or Lightroom. Adobe color management is based on .ICC profiles.
ICC has its own own limitations and advantages but that subject is for another day.
If you use Resolve 12 and debayer to BMD Film using normal YRGB it will use all the embedded matrices but there are no embedded HSV lut tables.
If you use Resolve with RCM you will only be using the color matrices - this is the most accurate in terms of how the camera sees light but will look very different to what you see in Adobe apps and you may not like the default rendering.
When it comes to raw processing in Canon's own DPP software, things change again because everything is managed through .ICC profiles.
Too much words but no clear answer :(
Why not just to add another image to comparison?
Anyway, thanks for so detailed reply.
@mothaibaphoto - Don't worry. If and when any changes happen to MLV related apps, I will provide a way for you to get the default color you are used to.
Sorry if my answer wasn't clear to your specific question and I know it is very confusing but I was trying to describe how you will get different color depending on two things:
1) The level of metadata in the DNG file and 2) how the raw reader (ACR, Resolve etc) uses the metadata.
I think it is important that ML users understand some of the back-end processing and how color is produced and managed across different applications.
You are used to Adobe color and the only way you will get full Adobe color is to use ACR. It will be the camera profile in ACR that provides the color information and this is completely independent of any metadata in the DNG file.
The Colorchecker images I posted will give you an idea of the basic differences that can occur but I will post some additional images when I get a chance. The difference in color in those images is due to how Resolve has been set-up (image 1 and 2 are the same image but are debayered to BMD Film colorspace in different ways) .
When you use the new color management in Resolve (RCM) it will ignore the forward matrices contained in the DNG file because RCM uses the CinemaDNG standard which does not allow forward matrices. If you debayer to BMD Film the old way (YRGB) it will use the forward matrices and will alter the color. YRGB must be fully or partly compatible with DNG standard - confusing, yes.
CinemaDNG standard is technically the correct standard for DNG raw video and Resolve 12 RCM, Premier Pro default CinemaDNG debayer and most other apps that debayer CinemaDNG will be based on that standard. DNG standard is aimed at stills photography.
At the moment, MLVFS and raw2cdng both embed forward matrices and are closer to DNG standard than CinemaDNG standard but because they do include these extra matrices they will give you something very close to Adobe color but only when you use an app that is based on DNG standard.
If MLV adheres to CinemaDNG standard it means we will lose the forward matrices but I will provide a set of high precision linear luts for ML users that will give you something very close to Adobe color if you want it.
Any change to the color related parts of MLV will not affect ML source code but would be used by the developers of raw2dng apps to provide the same color rendering between every app at default settings.
Hi Andy600
just bought the Cinelog package and trying to get all the options sorted.
I have the same question as @ruber - does Cinelog work with MLVProducer?
If yes - could you describe the common workflow?
if no - what are the reasons?
Hi xaled,
Sorry, Cinelog is for DaVinci Resolve or Adobe Camera Raw only depending on which version you have. MLVProducer doesn't support full colorspaces AFAIK, only log gammas. The Cinelog look luts should work with it but the source gamut will be incorrect. They are built for Alexa Wide Gamut RGB only.
I haven't looked at MLVProducer for a few weeks but I'll download the latest version and see what has changed and what is possible.
Edit: Just tried MLVP and although the Cinelog look and rec709 luts load ok the working gamut is not correct so the colors are wrong. The gamut is not changeable as far as I can see, only the gamma curve. The Cinelog Resolve luts will definitely not work - They are a different format and converting them to another lut format will not help as you would lose a lot of precision.
Hi Andy,
Thank you for the reply.
So it is "only" incorrect working gamut that stands in the way of using MLVProducer with Cinelog?
Sorry if my questions sound silly, I just getting to know all the technology and terminology.
Hi Andy600, I've been catching up on my reading and trying to understand what all this is about.
A friend of mine is a DP on some pretty high budget features and it is interesting that he is moving away from shooting raw on the Alexa to ProRes 4444 XQ even for VFX shots. He says that there is really no reason to shoot raw any more. Of course that isn't possible on DSLRs so shooting raw and transcoding to ProRes (or DNxHD) makes sense.
By the way, I don't know if this is the right place to report this but on your page: http://www.cinelogdcp.com/colorspace-transforms-acr/ there is a broken link to http://www.cinelogdcp.com/opencolorio-support
@xaled - I think MLVP displays white balanced camera raw RGB and has options to apply log transforms. It doesn't have gamut controls. If it did you could debayer MLV to the same primaries and curve as Cinelog-C (or other log colorspaces) then use the Cinelog Rec709 and look luts.
@dfort - shooting raw is seen as overkill and uneconomical for most productions, especially when the Alexa has ProRes XQ. The only significant benefit is the ability to change white balance multipliers easily in post but DPs are usually very careful with lighting and camera setup before hitting record, especially on big budget features. ARRI's transcoding app has the same debayer algorithm as the camera and most colorists that I know tend to commit raw to DI anyway, even when there is heavy compositing planned. The raw files then act as backups. There really isn't much between Log-C ProRes XQ and raw. End-to-end raw requires a lot more processing power and storage which is a big budgetary factor, especially with 4k/6k/8k becoming the norm so I can easily see your friends point.
If we had even 10bit internal log capture I'd bet 95% of users wouldn't ever shoot raw but unfortunately we're stuck with 8bit h.264 native recording. Raw is really our only option (a great option to have obviously). Transcoding to a log space in ProRes/DNxHD/DNxHR just keeps the data manageable.
Hi Andy600,
Just wondering if there is a definitive workflow when using FilmConvert with Cinelog-C Log Masters in DaVinci Resolve? I am not sure whether or not to add FilmConvert before or after color grading the Cinelog-C Log Masters. I am also unsure of the best camera profile to use in FilmConvert to use in conjunction with the Cinelog-C Log Masters. I want to make sure I am getting the best possible results using both of these products.
Thanks! :)
Is there any option to use Cinelog with, for example Magic Lantern Processor http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13512.0 (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13512.0) or would one always need to use the AE Plugin/Resolve?
Question for you folks who color correct your Cinelog-C Log Masters in DaVinci Resolve; how do you go about adjusting the settings that you normally would under the Camera Raw Master Settings and Decoder Settings tab? (I.E. Exposure, Contrast, Midtone Detail, etc.)
And happy new year, everyone! :)
@Tyronetheterrible
After set BMCC - or BMCC4K if you prefer black at cero - , the rest is in Davinci Resolve Manual. Same as a Black Magic Camera.
Quote from: budafilms on January 04, 2016, 09:36:43 AM
@Tyronetheterrible
After set BMCC - or BMCC4K if you prefer black at cero - , the rest is in Davinci Resolve Manual. Same as a Black Magic Camera.
Thanks for the reply budafilms! This is going to sound dumb, but, how exactly would I set it to BMCC / BMCC4K?
Normally when I would work with DNG files, I would set the Color Space and Gamma to "BMD Film" under the Camera Raw settings, enable "highlight recovery", and so on and so forth, but since these settings are inaccessible when working with ProRes Cinelog-C Masters, how would I go about doing this?
Thanks again! :)
@Tyronetheterrible
The raw panel controls are unavailable for anything other than raw files. For Cinelog-C files you can either use RCM by setting Resolve color management to YRGB Color Managed in the settings panel i.e.:
Input: Cineon
Workspace: Alexa Log-C
Output: BMD Film
or add the Cinelog-C to BMDFilm lut with Resolve color management set to YRGB - if you used Cinelog-C luts in Resolve to produce the ProRes files this method will give the most accurate color when compared to debayering DNG files to BMD Film in DaVinci YRGB colorspace. BMD Film colorspace in RCM is a little different.
You can think of 'gain' as your exposure control but for it to work like exposure you need to use it on a linear signal i.e. add the relevant 1D lut (from the VFX lut folder) to convert it to linear on say node#1, then another node with your tonal adjustments (contrast, gain, gamma etc).
Basic log grading can be as simple as adding some contrast and adjusting the offset/pivot point using Resolve's log tools then refine using the basic LGG controls and/or curves. Midtone detail and other controls are still available to non-raw footage but are initially hidden from view on page 2 of the color wheels tab (see the image below).
(http://i.cubeupload.com/RgAWyn.jpg)
Thanks so much for the clarification, Andy600! This helps tremendously.
To produce my ProRes Cinelog Masters, I set DNG colorspace to BMDFilm, enabled highlight recovery, used the BMDFilm to Cinelog-C LUT, and then applied basic color correcting and NR.
In my ProRes Cinelog Masters, I currently have the Cinelog-C to Cinelog-C Film Matrix RGB LUT in my first node, applied color grading in second node, and then have FilmConvert in third node.
If were to use the Cinelog-C to BMDFilm LUT that you mentioned, would you recommend I include it in a node before the Cinelog-C to Cinelog-C Film Matrix RGB node?
Last updates of cinelog almost year ago....any news or plans?
It's coming soon ... I can feel that he's been hard at work lately and should release by Spring if not sooner.
Quote from: Andy600 on January 08, 2016, 07:10:12 AM
The raw panel controls are unavailable for anything other than raw files. For Cinelog-C files you can either use RCM by setting Resolve color management to YRGB Color Managed in the settings panel i.e.:
Input: Cineon
Workspace: Alexa Log-C
Output: BMD Film
Hi Andy, i tried this way but i get a very dark picture, i dont know what mistake i did. RCM = Color Mangement Setting, right ?
(http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2016/07/1455618517-sans-titre.jpg)
Anyway, it was just a test, i dont will stop to use Cinelog-C, and will be happy if a new update comes.
@GutterPump - Those RCM settings I posted are for when you have already rendered ProRes/DNxHD files using the Cinelog Luts. The image shows you are using a raw file so the input should be set to linear, the workspace and output can then be set according to whatever output you need.
@snipeua - It's coming. I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot and say a date but the first of the free updates sent will be for the ACR/AE version. The update features new camera profiles and support for more camera models plus an updated OCIO config including provision for working temporarily in YUV, and new workspace ICC profiles - this gives more accurate matching to Nuke and Resolve levels and makes the intermediate files easier to work with across platforms/apps that have color management (OCIO, RCM etc). The new profiles keep things cleaner and don't need HSV tables. They also make better use of ACR's unique highlight rebuilding 'trick' and provide slightly more perceived DR than a DNG debayered in Resolve, Nuke or other DNG readers.
A Resolve lut update will follow with support for more colorspaces and input profiles (including baked-in profiles Cinestyle, ProLost, GH4 Vlog-L, A7s series Slog etc) and of course there will be new looks for both versions.
We've also been working on a powerful Cinelog Plugin for both AE and OFX with builtin support for a huge range of colorspaces/profiles plus a pro version that will allow users to expand functionality through custom OCIO, CTL scripting (including live editing), simple math functions, ICC profiles or luts.
Good thing I never ditched the AE/OCIO combo -- they mate well together, don't they? [emoji5]
Thanks Andy for yet another spoiler alert and looking forward to the upcoming new features!
@Andy
Looking very much forward to this update. Keep up the good work!
Hey @Andy600, any updates about the new ACR/AE camera profiles and Cinelog plugin? Still really excited to try them out!
Yesterday was just literally the first day of Spring ... Please just be patience guys and I personally know that @Andy600 has been (still is) hard at work for the much hyped Update for us that continue to make use of his remarkable products.
I am just as anxious as you all are but bugging him isn't going to speed up the process and let alone adding more stress on his already full plate isn't the most practical way of a solution, right?
8)
Hi Andy600,
Could you please specify what options are currently considered as "best settings" for Davinci Resolve 12 to:
1) open and edit ML DNG files directly in Davinci Resolve end export final movie in Rec.709 2.4
2) export ML DNG sequences as prores files in some universal log format, for example Arri Log C
I'm looking for correct settings for:
Color science, Input Colorspace, Timeline Colorspace, Output Colorspace, Lookup tables (with full Cinelog Lut names).
Thanks in advance
marekk
I just bought this product a few days ago.
The good:
Color correction, color grading is a BREEZE with this product! So many LUTS to choose from! Now I spend less time color grading and more time being creative! I am now a firm believer in RAW video.
The bad:
It took me 2 days to get OCIO and MLVFS installed. Make sure you follow the directions to the "T"! It is paramount!
Does anyone have an up to date method of getting 5D3 DNGS to Alexa LogC colour space using Resolve 12?
@beauchampy
In Resolve 12.5 (highly recommended) use DaVinci YRGB Color Managed (RCM) and set the following:
Click 'Use separate colorspace and gamma'
Alexa LogC
Input colorspace: Bypass / Linear
Timeline: ARRI Alexa V3 / ARRI LogC
Cinelog-C
Input colorspace: Bypass / Linear
Timeline: ARRI Alexa V3 / Cineon Film Log
Set the output colorspace to the same settings as the workspace if you want to export a log output (remember choose a minimum 10bit codec or higher) or display setting (rec709 / Rec709 etc for mastering).
It's very logical providing you know the input colorspace so, for instance, if you have Cinelog-C ProRes files and want to grade in Rec709 colorspace for Rec709 delivery you would select:
Input colorspace: ARRI Alexa V3 / Cineon Film Log
Timeline: Rec709 / Rec709
Output colorspace: Rec709 / Rec709
Different timeline settings will alter the behavior of the color tools.
If you don't want to use RCM for the whole project you can now use the Colorspace Transform Plugin on a node.
@Andy600
Thanks for taking the time to reply, I feel like I understand this a bit better now.
I'm still a bit confused however, and the results I'm getting are a bit strange.
Basically I'm working on a 'behind the scenes' music video project. I have DNG files from 5d MK III (BTS camera) as well as Arri Alexa Log-C ProRes (the A camera on the shoot). If possible, I'd like to get the 5D Raw in the same space as the Alexa so we can just use the same LUTS and get the same look..
So I'm in Resolve 12.5
Go to Master Project settings and change the Color science to 'DaVinci YRGB Color Managed'
In 'Camera Raw' I have my CinemaDNG set to Color Space 'BMD' and Gamma 'BMD Film'
Color Management
- Use separate color space and gamma checked
- Input colorspace: Bypass / Greyed out
- Timeline: Arri Alexa V3 / Arri LogC
- Output: Rec709 / Rec709
But now my 5D Raw looks incredibly crushed, clipped and over saturated. I'm aiming for an Arri LogC image which I can use Alexa Luts on..
I'm just delivering for web / Youtube / Vimeo if that helps.
Nailing this workflow would be a game changer for me. If you can help me work out where I'm going wrong, I'll be really really grateful.
Thanks so much
Beauchampy
Is it still crushed without using the lut? RCM is designed so that you don't need to use luts.
If the lut is a 'look' and includes a built-in display transfer function (likely) you would need to negate this by adding the inverse of it's transfer function or use the tools (contrast, curves, LGG etc) to balance the post-lut image.
Try bypassing the lut and switch back to DaVinci YRGB (not RCM). Disable the 'use separate colorspace and gamma' and set to 'Linear'. Now add the Color Management plugin on the 5D footage and set it to:
Input: use timeline / use timeline
Output: Arri Alexa V3 / Arri LogC
... how does this match the Alexa footage in terms of gamma? (looks flatter than the Alexa right!?) - so try Cineon instead of Log-C which should bring the gamma closer to Alexa footage. You'll need to play with 5D3 footage exposure offset to place middle gray at roughly the same level as the Alexa shots and then balance black level and diffuse white level at close to the same IRE levels as the Alexa shots - ideally there will be some sort of reference chart captured on both cameras and everything will be exposed properly but if not you'll need to do it by eye on 2 similar shots. Skin can be used as a very rough guide for middle gray if there is no better alternative.
Then apply the lut to a track node so it affects all footage on the timeline. How does it look?
You will not get an exact color match between the 2 cameras (the 5D3 raw footage is not color calibrated) so you'll likely need to use 'hue vs hue' and 'hue vs sat' to balance the color. This is where a good reference chart helps immensely.
If a color chart was shot and is supported in Resolve Colormatch you could also try that to map both cameras to a common look...but it rarely works well.
BTW, if you are using 3D look luts, set lut interpolation to Tetrahedral ;)
@Andy600
Now that Resolve includes its own OpenFX API, are you still going ahead with your planned release? I for one think it's still a worthwhile venture, and I'd be happy to purchase (and promote) it once its released. I gather you were pretty close anyway, so now with the easier to implement CUDA and OpenCL based GPU acceleration it should be a more viable prospect?
I know neither C nor C++ (yet) so it might be a while before I'm able to build my own custom plugins, and it would be great if Cinelog could provide a working solution in the meantime.
Yes! We're still going to release plugins for OFX and After Effects but due to RCM now having separate gamma/gamut abilities and a colorspace plugin we're shifting focus a little. I have a couple of new ideas and we'll probably retain the basic CTL and matrix plugins mainly because DCTL is in Resolve Studio only - DCTL is very cool. The developer info is helping to solve the GPU problems we encountered with OFX so thanks for the hint on LGG!. My own C++ knowledge is very basic so I'm more focused on color science and implementing specific routines (well, I will be after I've released the Cinelog update). I've employed a coder to speed up plugin development so hopefully I'll see a beta soon - I'm eager to try it myself.
Sounds great :) Looking forward to the new releases.
@beauchampy - sorry, I messed up ::) I wrote it from memory. I can't remember V12 doing this either.
Set RCM input to Rec709 (or any colorspace - doesn't matter) / gamma to Linear (i.e. don't bypass it).
This override's the Camera Raw colorspace settings. If RCM input is bypassed you can still use the Camera Raw colorspaces - but that would get confusing very fast.
DNGs are behaving differently in 12.5 with split RCM. I need to investigate further before I can give a definitive answer.
Quote from: Andy600 on April 25, 2016, 05:37:15 PM
@beauchampy - sorry, I messed up ::) I wrote it from memory. I can't remember V12 doing this either.
Set RCM input to Rec709 (or any colorspace - doesn't matter) / gamma to Linear (i.e. don't bypass it).
This override's the Camera Raw colorspace settings. If RCM input is bypassed you can still use the Camera Raw colorspaces - but that would get confusing very fast.
DNGs are behaving differently in 12.5 with split RCM. I need to investigate further before I can give a definitive answer.
Thanks for looking into this Andy.
For anyone else looking for a 'quick fix' - Hunters LUT is very close to Alexa Rec709, so I'm using that in conjunction with a LUT made for R709 Alexa.
(http://i.cubeupload.com/b1kgkZ.jpg)
If you setup RCM like this you can render out to Log-C and it's the same settings if you want to add Log-C luts (i.e. on a node). Change ARRI LogC to Cineon Film Log for Cinelog-C.
If you render to LogC or any other colorspace just set the input colorspace and gamma for each imported clip to whatever colorspace you rendered in.
The input colorspace is irrelevant for DNGs but it must be set to Linear gamma. You can also assign colorspace on the timeline for individual shots or use the colorspace plugin.
@beauchampy
Would it be possible for you to get hold of a few seconds of LogC from the Arri, where some charts are filmed and also by your 5d mkIII ?
If the scene is metered and suitably recorded, by comparing both sets of footage (after converting to linear light in Resolve) perhaps a clear difference can be pinpointed. I suspect the 5d DNGs will appear darker, as Resolve maps peak white (15000 in the case of 5d) to 1.0, whereas linearised LogC maps diffuse white (@90% scene reflectance) to 1.0 hence why it might appear brighter. It might be possible to match the linearised signals with just the Exposure control, then applying a linear to LogC transform with the new Resolve controls should produce a closer approximation.
No worries if it's not an option, but it would be cool if you could.
@baldavenger - It sounds like you want to tone map 5D3 linear to match inverse logC?
If you have a gray card ref (~18%) and diffuse white (~90%) you can roughly tone map the linear DNG to LogC middle gray IRE and 90% white. If you do this under the lin2logc transform (on the 5D3 raw shot) you can probably then use the metering in Resolve and match the DNG IRE values to LogC IRE values visually (in logspace) - then remove the lin2logC transform. Peak white will fall where it falls depending on super bright levels the shot. Resolve iluts are useful for this type of thing once you have a reference to build to.
For more accuracy you need a DSC 10 step grayscale chart which comes with a list of theoretical aim values for each chip. You shoot the chart and find the RGB levels for each chip. You might even get away with RGB picker in Resolve to record the shot values but it's better to measure luma in L*a*b colorspace using Matlab or similar. Then you would write a simple lut to map these input/source values to the known aim values (the aim values are normalized 0.0 to 1.0 so the recorded RGB values need to be normalized too).
An XY graph is a good way to build the curve but with so few reference points the lut needs interpolation to smooth things (B-Spline is perfect for this). Then, if we assume the lutted signal is linear (it's not but assume it is) you just add a transfer function like Rec709 or sRGB to correct the gamma for target display. This is the easiest way I know to match camera grayscale tonality in post but it does clamp the signal so it's output referred - however, knowing the mapped linear reference values does make it possible to build a curve fitting function - concatenate this with the Rec709 transfer function and you can then simply go Rec709 to Log-C because the footage is still effectively linear until it's rendered to something else. If it's been rendered to log, add the log to linear transform before the tone mapping and display TF then go Rec709 to Log-C.
I haven't looked at at ARRI Rec709 luts but I bet, if the lut is converted to linear gamma, they map LogC close to DSC aim values. I'll check sometime.
@Andy600
Thank you for the detailed explanation. I am indeed interested in matching 5D3 linear to inverse LogC, or more specifically converting the DNGs into true scene linear. Resolve still processes DNGs as display referred, and takes its cue from the black level and white level in the metadata. The white level can be changed (and therefore the part of the signal mapped to 1.0), but it also clips at that point unless Highlight Recovery is enabled.
If there was a standard (i.e linear scale) way of transforming the Raw information into true scene linear, then it would be much easier to make work with other camera sources. As it stands, applying lin2log conversions (such as Cineon or LogC) is a bit pointless in that the signal has already been squeezed because of DNG interpretation. Anyway, it would be handy to put these ideas to the test.
Actually after reading all of this thoroughly twice or so. Wonderful stuff. Even though I wonder does this mean I'll need to adjust my workflow in DR12 accordingly if I were to update to the latest version?
I'm hoping someone that makes us a little video tutorial showing us news techniques for using Cinelog -C with Davinci Resolve 12.5
It look really interesting and useful
In case anyone missed it: http://www.cinelogdcp.com/news-updates/2016/5/31/cinelog-c-dcp-2016-coming-soon
Yes, Cinelog-C DCP 2016 will be out soon and it's a free upgrade for current users.
We can now build ACR profiles in any log colorspace, not just Cinelog-C but it's a premium service and not something I envisage most users wanting or needing except maybe where the camera's DR is too much for Cineon i.e. BMD URSA Mini 4.6k.
There will be a smaller update later to Cinelog-C for DaVinci Resolve (aimed at users who can't run V12.5 with RCM) and some additional .DCTL luts for Resolve Studio plus some new looks compatible with both versions.
Thanks for the much anticipated update as it will be worth all the hype that we've been getting ourselves into as of late, right?
Looking forward to it, Andy and please take all the time you need to iron out the quirks. Also let me know if there are any beta testings that I'd be willingly to do for you when necessary.
*edit*
I just recently bit the bullet by going Beta3 w DR12.5 (thanks to @reddeercity for ur support) and assuming that everything has been fine with the current workflow that I use from your site.
Seems to be on my end but sounds like there'll be ways for improvements? The new features/specs especially with the luxurious exporting options. Really nice. Don't forget their new additional 'sliders' for CC.
BM is finally catching up to ACR.
I love Cinelog. How do we download the new update? I don't see a link. It just allows me to buy it again and download it.
edit - NVM. I now see its not released yet. 13.5 stops of DR?! Can't wait to test this out.
Is there a version of cinelog-C for lightroom since I don't use ACR?
How much difference is there in the picture quality (end result) between visionlog and cinelog in Lr after having converted my .MLV to cDNG with raw2cdng?
Is there any better alternative to visionlog than matches cinelog-C?
Quote from: Andy600 on June 03, 2016, 01:10:15 PM
Yes, Cinelog-C DCP 2016 will be out soon and it's a free upgrade for current users.
I got the upgrade, Yay! Now I've got to confess that I haven't been using it until today so this is a new installation for me. First thing that threw me off was the installation instructions:
http://www.cinelogdcp.com/cinelog-dcp-2016-installation
QuoteMac OSX installation path
Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles
Well, that would be a system wide installation but it didn't work when I tried it. The correct installation path for the Cinelog-C 2016 Digital Camera Profiles folder is: ~/Library/Application Support/Adobe/CameraRaw/CameraProfiles
So, that got me past the first hurdle. Now I've got to figure out the rest of it.
Installing the OCIO plugin was also a bit tricky. Following the installation instructions you don't really need to download the spi-vfx but it is necessary to put the Cinelog DCP 2016 folder into /Library/Application Support/OpenColorIO/ if you're on a Mac.
Everything is working great except the LUTs. I tried adding some of the look LUTs via both the Lumetri and the "Apply Color LUT" effect but it keeps coming out way too dark when applied over a LogC clip. Not sure what's going on with that. I is probably something I'm doing wrong because I can't tick the Preserve RGB box under Interpret Footage/Color Management.
Thanks for the path info - I'll update it.
The look luts are for Cinelog-C (Cineon), not Log-C and can be applied directly to Cinelog-C footage coming from ACR. Try loading a lut using OCIO, not Lumetri.
If the image is dark see the Exposure adjustment advice in the LUT Bank. There are also several built-in looks under the plugin's Display button.
You can't change interpretation for footage coming from ACR. The profiles are compensated for using 'HDTV Rec.709' workspace and the AE workspace MUST be set to this for the math to work.
Thank you very much for update! But how can I get "Cinelog_DCP_2016.zip", could not find on http://www.cinelogdcp.com.?
.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 11, 2016, 12:05:32 PM
...
The look luts are for Cinelog-C (Cineon), not Log-C and can be applied directly to Cinelog-C footage coming from ACR...
My bad, I'm applying Cinelog-C to the cdng files with ACR:
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/8/7653/27629603404_92433ccc44_z.jpg)
And I've got the
Cinelog DCP 2016 package working fine with the OpenColorIO plugin:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7459/28244951195_5a2b53bdde_z.jpg)
So now to install the look luts that I downloaded from the lut library:
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8673/27964108380_53dc910c7f_z.jpg)
You are saying:
Quote from: Andy600 on July 11, 2016, 12:05:32 PM
...Try loading a lut using OCIO, not Lumetri...
Which I take it isn't as simple as just dropping the luts into the Cinelog DCP 2016/luts folder:
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8648/27629514114_e153f8fa99_z.jpg)
This will require either modifying existing config.ocio file or creating a new one that contains just the luts that I want to work with. Problem is, to write a valid config.ocio isn't a trivial task. A quick read of the OpenColorIO config syntax (http://opencolorio.org/userguide/config_syntax.html) is humbling for this mere mortal filmmaker and trying to modify the config.ocio for the
Cinelog DCP 2016 package is not making things any easier. For example as far as I can determine these are the pieces that are needed to activate the
Cinelog Film Look 1 shown on my screenshot:
displays:
...
Rec709:
...
- !<View> {name: Cinelog Film Look 1, colorspace: Cinelog-C, looks: print1fc}
...
looks:
- !<Look>
name: print1fc
process_space: Cinelog-C
transform: !<GroupTransform>
children:
- !<FileTransform> {src: Cinelog_Film_01.cube, interpolation: tetrahedral}
- !<CDLTransform> {slope: [1.2, 1.2, 1.2]}
- !<CDLTransform> {offset: [0.03, 0.03, 0.03], direction: inverse}
...
So I'm lost, how exactly do I load your custom luts using OCIO?
I think I got my head wrapped around the other issues you mentioned:
Quote from: Andy600 on July 11, 2016, 12:05:32 PM
...If the image is dark see the Exposure adjustment advice in the LUT Bank. There are also several built-in looks under the plugin's Display button.
You can't change interpretation for footage coming from ACR. The profiles are compensated for using 'HDTV Rec.709' workspace and the AE workspace MUST be set to this for the math to work.
I've been careful to follow the advice in the
Exposure Compensation The Right Way! section of your documentation.
I'm building a separate 'looks' config specifically for previous look luts but it won't be ready for a week or so.
Until then, you can easily load luts (several formats) by clicking the Configuration dropdown in the OCIO plugin and select 'custom'. This will open a browser window. Find a lut, set interpolation to tetrahedral for 3D luts, Linear for 1D luts (Cinelog looks are 3D) and you're good to go.
If applying to regular footage (not from ACR) first convert the footage to Cinelog-C then use a second instance of the plugin to load a lut.
But how to update Cinelog_DCP to Cinelog_DCP_2016. Have i to buy DCP again?
@vstrglv - No you don't need to purchase it again. I've PM'd you.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 11, 2016, 07:51:37 PM
...you can easily load luts (several formats) by clicking the Configuration dropdown in the OCIO plugin and select 'custom'. This will open a browser window. Find a lut, set interpolation to tetrahedral for 3D luts, Linear for 1D luts (Cinelog looks are 3D) and you're good to go...
Well that's a whole lot easier than trying to work with the config.ocio file but I'm seeing the same issue as when using the lut in Lumetri and the "Apply Color LUT" plugins. I'm starting with a Cinelog-C file and this is what the Cinelog-C_to_Eastman_100T_5247_Teal.cube lut looks like in my After Effects project:
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8867/27632559163_559ed2a2cc_z.jpg)
As you can see from my previous post the luts in the
Cinelog DCP 2016 package seem to be working fine. It is just the ones from the lut library that I'm having problems with.
Print luts and our film Looks do appear darker because they are not compensating for display gamma. If you add exposure compensation (gain) before the lut (as in the exposure guide) you will increase the signal being fed into the lut. The lut will behave quite differently the more you push into it. At the moment it looks underexposed so you will need to correct it. I would hazard a guess at around +1 stop of exposure gain before the lut. White balancing in ACR will also help the look. Try auto WB if you don't have a true white reference in the scene.
The older Cinelog V3.0 profile has around +1 stop of exposure compensation built-in (it's basically Cineon +1 stop) but the new Cinelog-C profiles use Cineon default levels.
The exposure method in the guide is the best way to prep the signal because you can control the amount of gain or offset exactly but you could also try running through the V3.0 profile to adjust the gamma/exposure up a stop (although the look luts themselves were developed for Cineon default levels):
Plugin 1: this does not alter the gamut so the signal will still have Cinelog-C (Alexa Wide Gamut) primaries
Input space: Cineon Rec709 RGB
Output space: Cinelog V3.0 (legacy)
Plugin 2: Loaded Look lut
This is not recommended but could work. It all depends on your 'as shot' exposure. ETTR will always need compensating. Cinelog profiles assume normally exposed images.
I thought my exposure was right but a little exposure adjustment goes a long way!
This is what I've been looking at while I was editing--just a quick ProRes file from MLP without much color correcting:
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/9/8815/28203477815_c781fb58e6_z.jpg)
And here it is with the Cinelog-C_to_Eastman_100T_5247_Cross_Processed.cube and some exposure adjustment.
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/9/8656/28251549035_a0c6292227_z.jpg)
This is much closer to what I imagined when shooting the scene. Of course it could use a lot more tweaking but I'm off and running. Thanks again Andy600!
I don't know why I keep getting these huge artifacts of green blocks in my video. The recording is of a party and the DJ was using a strobe light with red, green and blue. If I convert the footage to H.264, there are no random green block artifacts, but if I convert to DNxHD 444 10-bit, there they are with arti..............................nope. Never mind :( So for my testing of the footage, I was using VLC. I just popped the footage into Premiere Pro and the footage was fine. I guess VLC doesn't like 32-bit video files.
Hi, First I would like to thank Andy for updateing Cinelog! I have had some problems to install it propper, both the old and the new vesion.
I have I have placed the OpenColorIO plugin in the AE plugins folder and I can se it in AE. Then I have creted the created the OpenColorIO folder in Application Support and placed the Cinelog configuration there as you can see on the image bellow!
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7663/28010954500_c1589670cd_b.jpg)
But I can´t find the config in the drop down menu! What's wrong?
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8635/28011060590_b791a82f04_b.jpg)
best regards Olle
@_OLLE_
Copy the folder named 'Cinelog DCP 2016' to /Library/Application Support/OpenColorIO/
hi andy thanks for reply! It still remains the same "No config in /Library/Application Support/OpenColorIO"
Could it be something wrong with my computer?
@_OLLE_ I doubt it's a problem with your computer.
Not sure which Application Support directory you installed to but there are Application Support directories under 'Users' so try also copying the folder there and relaunch AE - You may need to show hidden files first to reveal the user accounts. See: http://ianlunn.co.uk/articles/quickly-showhide-hidden-files-mac-os-x-mavericks/ (http://ianlunn.co.uk/articles/quickly-showhide-hidden-files-mac-os-x-mavericks/)
Failing that click on the Custom button. You can load the config this way but I'm interested to see what directory opens by default.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8804/28383576565_03d87d4421_m.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7769/28101218990_d13bba2e26_b.jpg)
It still not work but a found a new file in OpenColorIO folder as you can see.
I also load the config maually!
@_OLLE_ OK, that's good. Just move the contents of the Cinelog DCP 2016 folder (the 4 folders and the config file) to the OpenColorIO directory shown in your image then delete the Cinelog DCP 2016 folder - it should fix the problem.
sadly not! it still remains the same "No config in /Library/Application Support/OpenColorIO"
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8815/28365300916_0c3ddd5677_b.jpg)
Hi,
I have checked the three different options available on the cinelog website (http://www.cinelogdcp.com/product-compare/) and wonder which of these I should purchase if I use the workflow that involves mlrawviewer, lightroom and AE/Pr, not davinci.
I've come acros the following post (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15607.msg151956#msg151956) and wonder in which of the package purchases the LUTs ARRI universal film and rec709 fullrange are available.
I intend to use cinelog-C on 5d3 and even 600d.
You should get the ACR version if you are on adobe workflow.
Thanks Kharak, it has been purchased now, can't wait to test it. :)
What input space is recomend for transforming from ACR profile to Cinelog-C? Is it Cinelog V3.0 (Legacy)?
@_OLLE_ No, the latest camera profiles are all Cinelog-C so choose that as the Input Space. Cinelog V3.0 (legacy) is for use with the previous v3.0 profile versions.
If you are rendering log masters you don't even need to use OCIO now.
Is there a definitive list of controls in Lightroom that are usable or not usable when using the Cinelog DCP? I am hoping to grade my dng sequences in Lightroom and export them as tiffs for timeline editing in Resolve. Although it is a MUCH simpler workflow to grade/edit the dng sequence in Resolve, there seems to be too many artifacts introduced to the image when using the highlight recovery feature. The flickering issue when using Lightroom doesn't always show up, but I would much prefer a workflow that removed it as a concern, which is why I am hoping the Cinelog DCP will solve that problem.
@jmanord - The profile math is precise so anything you do that changes the tonality (i.e. shadows, highlights, blacks, whites, contrast, saturation, clarity, point curve, tone curve etc) should not be used unless you understand that doing so will alter the perceptual colorspace and thus alter every process you do downstream - this can amplify errors and make your images less compatible with the colorspace transforms and looks.
You can safely use sharpening, white balance and lens profiles but leave everything else nulled (settings at 0 or default). If you render the Cinelog-C files with only these corrections you will have the maximum latitude when it comes to grading.
BTW, It's easier to white balance and sharpen images using the Cinelog Rec709 camera profile before switching back to Cinelog-C.
Thank you for the quick reply Andy600. I think my question was based on a bad assumption as to my understanding of how Lightroom might work in conjunction with Cinelog DCP 2016. To use a bad analogy, my project level probably requires a plastic bubble level, and I'm wanting to use a self-leveling rotating laser level, so I appreciate your response given my lack of understanding. If the following is already answered by your previous post, I apologize, and will take a lack of a response as an indication of such.
My problem is finding a solution to recovering as much dynamic range in my footage as possible, without introducing additional image degradation, and maintaining as simple a workflow as possible. I'm sure that problem is unique to me ;) For a specific example, I opened this http://db.tt/dPPBr3wH (http://db.tt/dPPBr3wH) file in Resolve.
Here is how it looks without changes directly from Resolve:
(http://db.tt/WML75o3C)
Here is how it looks after checking the highlight recovery box and moving the highlight slider completely to the left:
(http://db.tt/DygH6nwn)
Here is how it looks in Lightroom after adjusting exp., highlight recovery, and shadows:
(http://db.tt/0TAjxj6f)
Here is what I would typically consider my desired end result, which was edited in Lightroom:
(http://db.tt/7F7kWufk)
The clouds in Resolve exhibit an odd pink cast and a slight posterizing effect. This example is one of the better outcomes of using Resolve's highlight recovery tool. Often times, the results include an extreme checkerboard effect of pink blocks in the recovered highlights area. The obvious solution would be to use Lightroom, but that may or may not introduce the dreaded flicker problem. What I don't know is if/how adjusting my workflow using Cinelog with Lightroom would allow me to achieve a similar desired end result. This is more than likely a case of me trying to use the wrong tool the wrong way for the wrong job. Thank you again for your help!
Interesting.
Try working with the tone curve tool as it,s linear opposed to non linear highlight recovery in acr.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=12796.msg129978#msg129978
The only way I can get back clouds like this in a linear way is through dcraw (-H 2 option) but that will mean for you leaving the current colorspace system and that itself has its caveats. If recovery of highlights like shown can be done outside acr I am very keen to know how it,s done.
Feel free to put up a dng file for tests.
@Jmanord
The highlights were clipped when shooting and there is no way you will pull back the lost information but I've uploaded the default Cinelog-C output from ACR (as a TIFF) for you to compare/grade.
Cinelog-C 5D Mark III profile. No sharpening, As Shot WB, no NR.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sample-conversions/Cinelog-C_5D3_Profile.tif (https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sample-conversions/Cinelog-C_5D3_Profile.tif)
(http://i.cubeupload.com/1aItlG.png)
That is impressive.
@Andy600 thank you for the file! Wow, your tiff shows much more information than is present in Resolve and Lightroom pre highlight recovery versions. I suppose I was hoping to use the results shown in the tiff you uploaded as a starting point for grading in Lightroom, which is what I was trying to ask in my original question, but doing a poor job of. I'm guessing it would make more sense to export the tiff from Lightroom and correct the file in Resolve with the added option of applying Cinelog-C luts? Thank you again for your help!
@Danne thank you for the feedback and alternative solution. The added dimension on the tone curve tool is a step too far beyond moving a slider left and right for my limited skills :( I'm always looking for the quick and easy solution to fix my footage, but as Andy600 alluded too, I should probably spend more time on getting correctly exposed material. If it wasn't for the ability to correct white balance with MLV, I'd probably never bother recording video.
Just had a quick play:
Cinelog Film Look 10. Lowered exposure a touch, pushed the highlights, added some midtone contrast and unsharp mask. 30 seconds ;)
(http://i.cubeupload.com/VJ6dAW.jpg)
That's fantastic! So, was this done in Resolve from the exported tiff, or Lightroom, or something else? Sorry for being so obtuse, I just want to make sure I'm understanding what the workflow looks like to get your result. 30 seconds makes me want to cry.
That was done in After Effects using the TIFF.
I added an exposure plugin and reduced offset a little (about 1/3 of a stop), then added a curves plugin to shape the contrast making an s-curve with a fairly steep slope to add contrast to the mids, then the Film Look (Cinelog-C to Cinelog Film Look 10 using the Cinelog OpenColorIO config), a levels plugin to push the gain up and finally the unsharp mask plugin. The trick is to make the adjustments in logspace under the lut so you are looking at the image with contrast and saturation.
TBH I haven't tried grading log images properly in Lightroom but everything I used in After Effects has an equivalent feature in Lightroom and Photoshop (except of course OCIO and Luts - though Photoshop can apply luts and both can use ICC profiles which can easily be exported from OCIO).
I'm not a day-to-day Lightroom user but I just bashed out a LR preset to roughly emulate the graded look I posted previously - just apply it to the Cinelog-C TIFF
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sample-conversions/Cinelog-C_process_01.lrtemplate (https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/sample-conversions/Cinelog-C_process_01.lrtemplate)
(http://i.cubeupload.com/CrV2oM.png)
@Andy600-
Thanks for the remarkable updates. They are incredible and now I am trying to wrap my head around with the newly somewhat modified workflow with your new Cinelog-C products.
I know you mentioned that we wouldn't be required to use OCIO to apply the 2nd part of (Cinelog-C) similar to what what we had to do in previous versions and it is to my surprise that for some reason I cannot understand (as one other has reported this as well) why or how to get the Cinelog-C configs to show up on the enlisted under the drop down window within OCIO in AE.
Here's a clip of what I am referring this to...
https://vimeo.com/177149931
Also I noticed you mentioned in previous post that you were able to scroll down and select Cinelog Film Look 10 from the OCIO listings? Where do I go about that? It seems I have to use the Apply Color LUT plugin from AE in order to apply this look on top of the Cinelog?
Thanks again, Andy!
Thanks for the tip, Andy. Gotta dig how lovely it is to use the Cinelog_Filmlooks by within a click of a button under 'Display' in OCIO. Nice hidden gem I'd say. Ha!
Quote from: Andy600 on July 26, 2016, 02:23:29 AM
I'm not a day-to-day Lightroom user but I just bashed out a LR preset to roughly emulate the graded look I posted previously - just apply it to the Cinelog-C TIFF
Andy, these results look amazing - what an exciting development!
Can we talk a bit about workflow?
I tend to shoot short form documentary style films, usually huge amounts of footage with interviews and all sorts (even on 5d3 raw).
I've been using a Resolve since the round trip workflow (creating roughly graded proxies, usually just with a LUT thrown on, editing in Premiere, XML back to Resolve for the grade) is quite efficient.
Would it be possible to maintain a similar workflow, but the grading process done inside AE utilising ACR and OCIO? Is there a round trip style workflow?
Wondering which "Sharpness" settings you guys prefer to use in the raw tab within DaVinci Resolve. Is there a proven best range for ML footage processed with Cinelog (or the DaVinci Color Managed equivalent) to get a clear image without overdoing it? Depends on taste, I guess, just interested in what you're all generally using.
Just talking about the raw panel in particular, not whatever other technique used in the grading process afterwards. :) I'm just struggling whether to rely more heavily on the raw tab or do my major sharpening later on with other tools.
Hi,
I am having a big problem.
In AE (via camera raw) I selected cinelog-C rendered y footage. I imported the footage in Pr where I added two separate adjustment layers on top of them:
1st adjustment layer: blending mode set at normal 100%
OCIO #1:
input space: cinelog-C
output space: cineon REC709 RGB
OCIO #2:
Vision 6 - log32 from Osiris LUTs
interpolation: Tetraheral
2nd adjustment layer: blending mode set at normal 70%
only one OCIO:
Vision 6 - log32 from Osiris LUTs
interpolation: Tetraheral
In order to make all my footage have the same "color mood" as if the footage is filmed before sunset I've made some adjustment using colorista, three-way color corrector and some tweaking in lumtri color panel's curves (red, green, blu channel).
The problem I've having now is that I get too much noise in my shadows even though I've lowered the saturation of my shadows to below 50%. My ISO have been set at 80-260 at most and used denoise in camera raw. On top of that I've used red giant denoiser II plugin to remove the excess noise. Yet I am still getting too much noise.
I suspect that I've done something wrong in the OCIO. I hope that you guys can help me solve this problem since I have a deadline to render this video in two days.
You are using the wrong osiris luts. When you output from cinelog c to rec709, your Osiris luts should be the rec709 too. You are applying log luts to rec709 footage the way you are doing it.
and you are adding two of the same luts on top of each other, that is quite counter productive in my eyes, unless you are going for something special there. I would rather try applying only one osiris rec709 lut and grade it from there. Applying Log luts to rec709 will, if its by the book, crush a lot of detail as the log luts are inverse curves designed for bringing log to rec709 or close to it. By applying log to rec709, you are applying very extreme curves.
Tip, do the Colour Correction before adding the look lut and then after applying the lut do the Colour Grading.
Many thanks Kharak, I'l do what you've said. Yes I do the color correction on the underlying footage, i.e. before applying the LUTs.
Quote from: Kharak on September 14, 2016, 04:54:06 PM
Tip, do the Colour Correction before adding the look lut and then after applying the lut do the Colour Grading.
Meanwhile, I did the following modification prior to your reply. Tell me if it is right:
On top of the footage:
1st adjustment layer: blending mode set at normal 100%
OCIO #1:
input space: cinelog-C
output space: linear REC709
OCIO #2:
input space: linear REC709
output space: Cinelog REC709
2nd adjustment layer: blending mode set at normal 70%
only one OCIO:
Vision 6 - log32 from Osiris LUTs
interpolation: Tetraheral
Is that a correct approach? Thanks in advance.
I think the problem is that you are still applying Osiris Log Luts to non-log footage (your ocio conversion). If you bought the Osiris pack, you should have two seperate folders, log and Rec709. You should be applying Rec709 Luts to Rec709 footage and Log Luts to Log footage. Ofcourse, "log" in the term of Osiris luts is a Generic Log, you have cinelog which is "one kind" of log. There are so many different kinds of log like c-log, s-log, log-c etc.. This is the beauty of cinelog that it allows you to match different cameras with different log profiles. But the Log Luts in Osiris is a generic log, it means that it is only an inverse curve which doesn't match exactly to anything in cinelog-c. The osiris log will require adjusments no matter what, but their Rec709 should not require too much adjustment, because it is a global standard.
So try to apply osiris rec709 to your converted cinelog-c to rec709 footage. That should take you in the right direction.
Also your step 2 is unnecceary, as you can just go directly from cinelog to cinelog rec709 if i remember correctly
If it's a lut for log footage try:
OCIO#1
input space: Cinelog-C
output space: Cineon Rec709 RGB or Cinelog-C with Film Matrix
Tip: You could also try any of the Cineon DSLR output profiles or Cineon 2-Strip, Cineon 3-strip for alternative colors (i.e. as the output space).
Cineon Rec709 RGB is the default but Cinelog-C with Film Matrix can make things pretty.
OCIO#2
Your Osiris Log Lut (tetrahedral interpolation) - If it looks wrong (washed out) then try the Rec709 version.
Hint: A lut that is intended to be applied to Rec709 footage will have very little, if any, contrast. If it does apply a ton of contrast it is a good indication that the lut is for a log source (or just badly made).
Kharak is correct - There is no need to use 2 OCIO instances to go from one colorspace to another unless you are doing something in between i.e. exposure adjustments in Linear light.
Tip: don't use the GPU acceleration option more than once (it's not multi-threaded) and only ever use it for output luts, not colorspace transforms because it clamps the signal at 0-1 - I never use it.
If the words 'Generic log' are inferred it is almost always Cineon and Cinelog-C is Cineon in terms of gamma - If the Osiris luts were built for Cineon you should get a reasonable result but it's possible they were built for VisionLog so try VisionLog Gamma as the output space in OCIO (but watch out for highlight clipping).
I see. Thanks guys. Two questions:
1) Should I set the following configuration
OCIO#1
input space: Cinelog-C
output space: Cinelog-C with Film Matrix
to convert or display?
2) Are the Cineon DSLR output profiles or Cineon 2-Strip, Cineon 3-strip,... logs?
If you're adding the Osiris lut then you want to keep the image in logspace - you are only converting the gamut so you would do so in 'convert' not 'display'.
There are several 'color type' choices - Cineon Rec709 RGB is a straight forward matrix transform to Rec709 primaries. The DSLR cineon options can be thought of as Rec709 but have targeted hue adjustments in much the same way as happens with Picture Styles in the camera but non-destructively. The 2-strip and 3-strip options attempt to emulate Technicolor film processing. They are matrix conversions i.e. technically you can undo them (inverse transform) but you can't undo the DSLR color options.
The DSLR color profiles in 'convert' are all log - you'll notice if you choose any of the DSLR Cineon profiles that the gamma will not change but a color lut (or matrix) is being applied that maps the gamut to rec709 and then applies some other color adjustments - the actual gamut mapping happens in linear but is then converted back to log so you'll see no gamma change when you convert, only color.
The 'looks' in the Display list are output referred meaning they are intended for final output.
Thanks Andy. I get the whole picture now. One last question, do I loose any picture quality if I render the LUT processed footage in 24bit in Pr CC 2015 instead of 32 bit? The footage has previously been rendered in 32 bit via AE.
If for example I use mlvproducer to export into cinema dng is it important to setup a particular color space for export? Then I will add cinelog only in premiere or davinci resolve.
may you try please?
thx
@ibrahim - I think you're confusing the workspace bit depth with output encoding. Any quality loss will depend on your choice of delivery codec. If you are uploading to Youtube/Vimeo it's pointless going above ProRes HQ or DNxHD equivalent. Most users will upload H.264. For archiving a master you can output at higher quality.
@Brawl - CinemaDNG is raw (well technically it's a TIFF) and doesn't really have a colorspace until you debayer it. The colorspace is dependent on the raw app (Resolve, ACR, Lightroom etc) and it's color management. I doubt MLVP is embedding ICC profile data and any changes you can make in the app are unlikely to affect the DNGs that are exported from it.
Thanks Andy. Yes my question was about encoding, a separate question from workspace. Do you know any hosting website that supports prores unlike youtube or vimeo that compresses the quality?
I came across www.frame.io but wonder how effective it is to upload prores for clients.
Quote from: Dan HaagWondering which "Sharpness" settings you guys prefer to use in the raw tab within DaVinci Resolve. Is there a proven best range for ML footage processed with Cinelog (or the DaVinci Color Managed equivalent) to get a clear image without overdoing it? Depends on taste, I guess, just interested in what you're all generally using.
Just talking about the raw panel in particular, not whatever other technique used in the grading process afterwards. :) I'm just struggling whether to rely more heavily on the raw tab or do my major sharpening later on with other tools.
Sorry for quoting myself, won't do it again. :P Would reeeeally love to know your sharpening workflow and general sharpen settings with Cinelog in DaVinci Resolve. 8)
Is Cinelog-C still in business? I purchased their bundle package this morning, but it won't allow me to setup my LUT Bank account, which seems to be the one and ONLY place documentation presumably exists and I can't find any way to contact the company other than the contact page which says they're receiving an overwhelming number of emails and response times are delayed. Of course my first thought was, "you didn't have any delays in accepting my money" or clarifying ALL SALES ARE FINAL; but I digress.
I don't mean to speak ill of them at all, I want to love them because I think they have the solution to my problems, it's just been a less than desirable first experience.
**and yes I appended the token to the url properly
Hi Andy, hi folks,
I've been trying to use Cinelog-C luts in Resolve, ML RAW, Raw2CDNG, BlackMagic to Cinelog-C, to Cinelog Rec709 and this is what i'm getting. Weird highlights (flame). Looks better before the lut, i'm missing something with the workflow?
see the exemple
http://gofile.me/6sW4Z/apShSmMVk
@JeDail,
This looks like a workflow related issue.
Can you send me the dng and I'll check.
@mdchev - I trust everything was sorted to your satisfaction on the 16th?
Hi Andy, if you have the time could you add some more new LUTs to the LUT Bank, I love the ones you have already there.
Especially like the film simulation Luts, with variations in the grade.
Note to ML Community:
Hey Everyone!
I am a first time poster, but a long time stalker. I wanted to thank the ML Dev team + everyone who still talks in here, manages the program, trouble shoots, gives tutorials, etc. I'm amazed at how amazing ML is as a program, but even more amazed at how it is as a community. I have no code skills, but I'd love to give back in anyway possible once I graduate from school!
If you ever want to stalk me and my wife, (shameless plug) but you can see our video skills progression on vimeo.com/shelbyandbrooks. (I'm pretty heavy in the description about workflows so I can remember how I did it - some might find this helpful!)
To Andy600
Figured out how to Install OCIO. Get Cinelog stuff working in it, etc. (I might post a tutorial on this, I literally almost didn't buy Cinelog because I didn't understand how to install / use OCIO.) So far so good! Love the film looks!
I recently got the full Magic Bullet Suite for sub $300 (student discount = 50% off, + 40% off for their end of year deal). I am an Adobe user and have found their programs to make a bit more sense to me. I would like to do the majority of my color grading within Premiere.
I would like my workflow to be:
5D Mark III -> MLVFS -> After Effects (Smart Import 2 script) -> Cinelog-C ProRes 4444 XQ (for storage, then delete DNGs on confirmation the clip looks good) -> Premiere / MB Looks.
I really prefer to grade in Premiere because I need to see the adjacent clips / cuts so as to make sure the grades fit well through the transition.
Question:
I talked with the support staff at MB and they stated:
Andrey V (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:26:06 am)
We when grading - we have a "Your Footage Is" tool that helps Looks 4 by identifying your footage as Log or sRGB. We do have some generic presets, as well as 2 Sony S LOG based presets:
Andrey V (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:26:14 am)
https://static.livechatinc.com/1053031/OKD3D8WQR7/b08943681247747215e727550324bbe1/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-20%20at%209.22.40%20AM.png
Andrey V (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:27:11 am)
You also have the option of creating your own preset by select "Log" under the "Gamma" drop down menu, adjusting Exposire, Contrast, Saturation, White, and Black and then saving the Preset with a custom name that will populate in the Presets menu:
Andrey V (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:27:21 am)
https://static.livechatinc.com/1053031/OKD3D8WQR7/39d04a4c107c2267161113b444dcc872/Screen%20Shot%202017-01-20%20at%209.23.01%20AM.png
Andrey V (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:28:17 am)
I the vast majority of cases, selecting Log or Flat Video is a good starting point to tweak your specific log from.
Andrey V (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:28:42 am)
however we do not have a specific preset for the profile you linked me to
Brooks Powell (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:29:29 am)
Cool. I am not too technical. Will the custom be enough you think for the maker of Cinelog-C to create a preset for his log?
Brooks Powell (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:29:37 am)
Does he need to know anything else
Brooks Powell (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:29:38 am)
?
Andrey V (Fri, 1/20/2017, 09:30:51 am)
Absolutely, it is a very flexible interface and designed to be customized for any of the available Log formats (Canon log, Panasonic log, the Cinema DNG that BlackMagic uses) - in fact this preset can even be created with a trial version of the software"
Q1)
Is what Andrey said is true about being able to customize that area for any available log format? If so, would it be possible for you to let us know what the settings should be? / Make a preset?
I think the easiest way would be to play with it on the free trial. However, I uploaded the options here as well:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7qNP2ugJkrMM0JpN29jMnR4LUU
Q2
I have searched the interwebs, internal docs, etc. and can't find anything / I want a quick confirmation. When I import my cDNGs to AE, I then get the ACR pop up, then I go to camera profiles and make it "5D Mark III Cinelog-C" or what not.
I understand that if I were to convert to Cineon or something else, I use OCIO and make input Cinelog-C, then output to whatever.
However, if I just want to render Cinelog-C master files in ProRes 4444 XQ, do I need to open up OCIO? And then do input Cinelog-C and output Cinelog-C? It seems I wouldn't, since no change is occuring if the input / output are same, however, I know your product uses OCIO as part of the way it functions, and so I have just been worrying that somehow I'm not getting true Cinelog-C if I don't run it through OCIO. (When doing a lot of footage, like 150 clips, I would hate having to open OCIO for each.)
Sorry for my lack of technical knowledge!
Q3
-In AE, specifically the rendering part, do we want to click "preserve RGB"?
-How should the AE color management be handled? Any updates with the 2016 product you have put out?
-In ProRes 4444 XQ, there's an option about Gamma (I believe its "auto" or "off".) Which should we use with Cinelog-C?
Thanks so much! Got a gig from a friend that needs a video done in Cuba and leaving in next few days, hoping to use Cinelog-C for it!
I can at least answer Q2 - You don't need to add the OCIO effect if you're rendering out Cinelog-C masters. You can find a description of the correct render output settings in the Cinelog Quick Start guide.
Thanks @Andy600 for yet another fine update to Cinelog DCP 2017! :D
+1
Looking forward to checking out Cinelog 2017. The ACR workflow is slow, but for times when image quality is of the utmost importance it can't be beat.
https://vimeo.com/204218877
I love it! Cinelog is amazing for so many reasons.
@DeafEyeJedi
Great video!
Do you have a similar link the use in Resolve under OSX?
Thanks!
@budafilms
There is currently no 'stable' OFX solution for OCIO in Resolve but we're working on something ;)
For colorspace management in Resolve Lite you have the option of Resolve's Colorspace Transform plugin, ACES workflows or Lut solutions (like Cinelog).
If you have Resolve Studio (the paid version) you also have DCTL. Paul Dore (@baldavenger) has built quite a few useful DCTL scripts: https://github.com/baldavenger/DCTLs (https://github.com/baldavenger/DCTLs)
Interesting video, @deafeyejedi. Is there a particular reason you were changing the input space around so much? Was it just to experiment with random settings?
@Andy600
Thank you!
I will try Resolve Luts, meanwhile your cinelog is in development for this software.
I saw the Baldavenger work, it's interesting, but I need to simplify work and it's very complex and time demanding in real works situations.
@Andy600
since a few weeks I am use CineLog-C_DCP_2017 for ACR and I am very happy with the Result in my Video work.
I am working in WIN-10, Camera EOS 5D3-123 with MLV-rec and use raw2cdng 17.9 for MLV decoding to cdng for ACR in AE ore LR. In your Homepage User guide I found only your recommend the ap raw2cdng for Windows user and my questions is if I can use the actually version of MLV_dump ore MLVP>cdng as well.
@NoCp_Albert
MLV Dump and MLVP should work fine as long as the correct camera model tags are written. If cam profiles (not just Cinelog) specific to the model are selectable in ACR then the tags are correct.
The older raw2dng with .raw format wrote a generic model tag and fixed 5D3 matrices which meant either using a custom profile or re-tagging and adding extra exif data so MLV is the better option.
MLRawViewer was one to avoid because it saved lossy DNGs.
I really need to do a full evaluation of all new/current apps to verify their DNG exports especially since the addition of 10/12/14bit recording but most 'seem' to do ok.
@Andy600
Thank you for your Info.
Of course I use the CineLog Cam profil as well for the 5D3.
So, I tried Cinelog-C. It's great. I did a comparison between the VisionColor BMDfilm (the rebranded VisionLog, it seems), and the result was much better midtones and colors keep at full palette (on BMDfilm it seems that greens go to yellow).
This post is not some kind of attempt to astroturf, I'm just doing an honest feedback.
Now, can @Andy600 or any of you guys reading this answer me this question: how to correctly use ImpulZ luts on Cinelog? The LUTs embedded on Cinelog package works great, especially the "[CFL] Kodak Vision 2383 grade 0x", but I would like to have some of the ImpulZ LUTs. I've used many times the Kodak Kodak Vision3 50D 5203 (DP)_FPE while on H.264, but now on RAW I couldn't get the same colors.
Any tips? I use the LUTs from what camera/colorspace? And how about the difference between CIN, VS, FC and FPE?
Thanks in advance.
That's an interesting question! I've spent a lot of time scrolling through different folders, trying out different flavours of the Impulz luts.
This is very simple and it works for me:
1. In general use the Film Contrast luts
2. Arri Alexa luts work really nice with Cinelog straight out of the box
Also check out this lut I made, which I actually think is really nice
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=19338.msg182488;topicseen#msg182488
@bpv5P
If you want the approximate same colors as you get with H.264 then convert Cinelog-C to one of the DSLR looks i.e. if you shot H.264 Neutral choose Cinelog Neutral Rec709 in the OCIO config.
re: Which Impulz luts to use? I would suggest watching some of Denver Riddle's Impulz videos.
As @hyalinejim suggests, Cinelog-C uses the same primaries as Alexa Log-C and conveniently the difference between Cinelog-C (when applied to a ~11stop raw image from a Canon DSLR) and a normalized Log-C shot from the Alexa are very close. When you add a log-c lut Cinelog-C will probably look a little over-exposed compared to an actual Alexa shot but you can usually use Log-C luts IF they were developed for the Alexa by tweaking the exposure offset before the output/look lut.
@hyalinejim - I'll check out your Ektar lut later - your images look nice! :). We've actually got several rolls of that here and planning to profile it soon.
Thanks Andy! I'm trying it out on lots of different clips and it seems to be usable in the majority of conditions, which isn't always the case with look luts. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of your profiling. I'm half thinking of buying a roll of Ektar for my once-used, gathering dust, mainly-a-decoration OM-1 body, and shooting a chart in one stop intervals with the 5D side by side.
Quote from: Andy600 on April 06, 2017, 02:32:44 PM
...@hyalinejim - I'll check out your Ektar lut later - your images look nice! :). We've actually got several rolls of that here and planning to profile it soon.
Oh hell yeah baby!
Quote from: hyalinejim on April 06, 2017, 03:30:40 PM
I'm half thinking of buying a roll of Ektar for my once-used, gathering dust, mainly-a-decoration OM-1 body, and shooting a chart in one stop intervals with the 5D side by side.
That would be a fun project. Love to see the results.
Hello Magic Lantern Community,
I've recently converted from Mac to PC, and cannot seem to get Cinelog-C to show in Adobe Camera Raw with DNGs. I used mlv dump, and even tested MLVRawviewer to no avail. I'm using Windows 10, 2017 version of Cinelog-C, and the most recent versions of Adobe Photoshop and After Effects. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
- Paul
Hello Magic Lantern Community,
Relating to my above post, I forgot to mention that Cinelog-C was the only profile not recognized. Adobe Standard, Landscape, etc as well as Embedded were there. Camera Raw even said Canon 7D. I placed the Cinelog-C_DCP_2017_for_ACR folder in Camera Profiles under Adobe Camera Raw and no luck.
- Paul
How are you converting to dng? Upload a sample dng file.
Could you try processing MLV files with this:
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=10526.msg186929#msg186929
Hi @Paul
3rd party profiles like Cinelog-C need to go into a User directory not the main Adobe profiles directory (this avoids non-native profiles being systematically deleted when upgrading Adobe Camera Raw versions).
For Windows the install path is typically
C:\Users\(Your user name)\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles
@Andy600 you have mentioned that Cinelog is based on AlexaLog. What's the difference between them and why should someone use Cinelog instead of free AlexaLog?
Quote from: bpv5P on July 14, 2017, 02:27:57 AM
@Andy600 you have mentioned that Cinelog is based on AlexaLog. What's the difference between them and why should someone use Cinelog instead of free AlexaLog?
@bpv5P
That's a perfectly reasonable question. I could just say that Cinelog-C profiles provide the best raw image conversion ready for transcoding but that is subjective. There are technical and aesthetic reasons why I believe this is so but the full answer would be very long and likely involve a lot of image comparisons across a lot of apps (something I should probably do for the website). I tend to limit my own opinions to technical aspects and let users' real-world use of Cinelog in creating their images do the talking. It's ultimately about getting the best results but admittedly you do need a critical eye to see it sometimes, especially if the shot is average DR and well exposed.
The profiles are just one part of Cinelog-C. There is also our look luts (we are profiling new film stocks atm) and custom OCIO configurations plus one2one support to factor into things. It's not free but it's entirely your choice if you feel you want/need something or not :)
I have heard it said
"I tried xyz app but can't get as good/clean/nice an image as I get with Cinelog". While this is also subjective (and I hope they are not just describing the look of the flat log image lol) there is real math, implemented with a solid understanding of how the host app manages color, that is ultimately producing favorable user responses.
To answer your question better you'll need to be more specific about your 'AlexaLog' and where it comes from i.e. what is the app doing the conversion? Is it just Log-C gamma or the full colorspace? Every MLV app I have tested to date, that offer 'AlexaLog', 'Log-C' or other log colorspaces, seem to have their own interpretation that either does not use all or any of the published math or, if the math was used, is being implemented or interpreted incorrectly by the dev or is otherwise being adversely affected by the libraries used for building the app and restricting/altering the output to something other than what it is labeled as. If you want to provide a sample of your AlexaLog transcode and the original raw file I'll happily convert it to Log-C via Cinelog-C for you to compare.
I have actually worked with and helped several devs and their open source raw apps over the last few years in an effort to bring greater color accuracy, provide math or help with other color science related issues but, as has proven to be the case each time, there has been some fundamental limitation on what can be achieved with the open source raw libraries used.
The Cinelog-C log curve is Cineon, not Log-C (although Log-C itself is based on Cineon - the 'C' stands for Cineon) and there is a good reason for this. Canon and ARRI use slightly different methods to describe and chart relative exposure (I need to dig out the actual math but from memory the base ISO of a Canon DSLR is 400 relative to the Alexa's 800ISO when using ARRI's methods. 100 or 200 depending on the model according to Canon methods) and by substituting Log-C for Cineon you effectively get a close exposure equivalent to what you would get from shooting the same scene on an Alexa or Amira camera at the same EI/Ev. There is a small +offset difference (~2/3 Fstop) but it means you can effectively use Alexa luts and presets just by pulling Cinelog-C exposure a little before the Alexa look/lut. The toe part of the Log-C formula is very specific for optimizing the Alexa's noise profile and not really useful for much else hence why I didn't just go with a Log-C curve (I did experiment with Log-C and many other curves but Cineon was optimal). Cineon log is also ubiquitous in color grading and VFX apps so it's easy to linearize and is also relative to print density i.e. ready-made for film print luts.
I've seen some great results with cinelog-c through acr. Impressive conversion work on dcp profiling. The real deal.
Such a thorough and thoughtful reply from Andy reflects the care he's put into Cinelog. And as Danne mentioned this becomes clear when you look at the results from ACR and Cinelog.
I'm not sure that Cinelog for Resolve adds much compared to debayering to LogC, but maybe I'm wrong about that Andy? Even if so, ACR Cinelog is worth it for ultimate highlight reconstruction, low noise and colour separation.
QuoteHi @Paul
3rd party profiles like Cinelog-C need to go into a User directory not the main Adobe profiles directory (this avoids non-native profiles being systematically deleted when upgrading Adobe Camera Raw versions).
For Windows the install path is typically
C:\Users\(Your user name)\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\CameraRaw\CameraProfiles
Thanks Andy! This worked perfectly.
- Paul
Ok @Andy600, thanks.
But... I have to ask: is @Danne and @hyalinejim doing some astroturfing for you?
I've noticed you're using some selling techniques (especially social proof and bandwagon bias).
There's nothing wrong trying to sell your products, but I don't like astroturfing and discourse manipulation, and as a open source community we should keep these things out of here.
Quote from: Andy600 on July 14, 2017, 12:34:58 PM
[...]
there is real math, implemented with a solid understanding of how the host app manages color, that is ultimately producing favorable user responses.
[...]
The profiles are just one part of Cinelog-C. There is also our look luts (we are profiling new film stocks atm) and custom OCIO configurations plus one2one support to factor into things. It's not free but it's entirely your choice if you feel you want/need something or not :)
So, if you don't need to achieve the exact same colors between various cameras and don't need all the other stuff (luts and support), there's no advantages? Yes, it's our entire choise to feel we want/need it, but if there's no advantage, why would anyone waste money on it?
Since your choise is to keep color conversion linear, your two points of improvement can me the luma curve and color precision. Most people here don't need that precision in color, so on the luma curve there's no better dynamic range preservation compared to alexa-log (the version implemented on MLVProducer, for example)?
Again, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prejudice you or anyone possibly working with/for you. It's just that, if your product has no advantage over a free/open implementation, I think no one should buy it. I can think in a recent example like this: corporations were selling certificate authority for many time; "Let's Encrypt" implement a free/open implementation doing the exact (or better) same thing. Now everyone is going to Let's Encrypt. The same should happen with any product that does not do it's job. Contrary to what marketers say, quality is very important. You can do money with basically anything, but not everything keep itself on top of others if it has no advantages over these other alternatives.
@bpv5P
I tried previously to answer your questions in an open and thoughtful manner (even offering you test conversions) yet you chose to take a very negative approach based only on your own assumptions with what I can only assume to be a mindset that is prejudiced against anything that is not open source. You also chose to question the integrity of 2 highly regarded members of this community with this:
Quote from: bpv5P on July 18, 2017, 05:04:39 PM
But... I have to ask: is @Danne and @hyalinejim doing some astroturfing for you?
Certainly not! I have never solicited, used or manipulated responses from users, deceptively or otherwise. @Danne, @hyalinjim and others can speak for themselves on this but no users have ever benefited, in any way, through endorsing what I do. Their comments and views are their own.
Over time, Cinelog has received numerous endorsements privately from users, some of whom are highly regarded industry professionals and known for being highly critical but I chose not to use these comments even though I could for marketing purposes for the reasons I stated in my previous reply to you.
QuoteI've noticed you're using some selling techniques (especially social proof and bandwagon bias).
There's nothing wrong trying to sell your products, but I don't like astroturfing and discourse manipulation, and as a open source community we should keep these things out of here.
I had to Google the marketing terms you used.
I agree with the last part of your statement (above) however, in the context of your post, there is very obvious implication of dishonesty directed towards myself, Cinelog and the users you mentioned previously that I strongly deny and take issue with. I am not knowingly using any selling techniques. I do not make spurious claims and I am very open with my answers.
Magic Lantern is an open source project but using it or contributing to these forums has never precluded anyone from discussing or recommending commercial applications or products here except where those products have violated Magic Lantern's licensing or the terms and conditions of this message board. The fact that the vast majority of users do use commercial software is evident.
QuoteSo, if you don't need to achieve the exact same colors between various cameras and don't need all the other stuff (luts and support), there's no advantages? Yes, it's our entire choise to feel we want/need it, but if there's no advantage, why would anyone waste money on it?
Sorry I don't quite understand your logic here. Why would you buy anything that you don't want? Aside from the things you mention (accuracy, luts, support etc i.e. some of the advantages) you should take another look at my previous reply and the responses of others as to why Cinelog is regarded as it is. In addition to that, it provides an effective scene-referred processing capability in an app (ACR) that is strictly display-referred and bypasses any requirement to use image-adaptive filters (that will cause flicker). That might sound like marketing spiel but it is factual.
QuoteSince your choise is to keep color conversion linear, your two points of improvement can me the luma curve and color precision. Most people here don't need that precision in color, so on the luma curve there's no better dynamic range preservation compared to alexa-log (the version implemented on MLVProducer, for example)?
What is your assumption about 'dynamic range preservation' and 'alexa-log' based on exactly?
Alexa Log-C is for encoding the 16bit DGA signal from the Alexa's sensor and not an efficient use of the space for transcoding 14bit MLV (and becomes increasingly detrimental to 12 or 10 bit MLV as it spreads code values too far apart and can increase the visibility of banding).
When it comes to transcoding, my choice (dictated by color science and best working practices) is to keep initial color rendering strict and color manipulation to an absolute minimum, deferring color decisions to later in the pipeline. Basically retaining the maximum latitude in a known colorspace.
You again mention 'alexa-log' but what is that exactly? MLVProducer is a great app that can be used for everything (and there are several others too) but there are quality differences and often issues between raw video debayering and encoding with such apps compared to their commercial counterparts else why would those exist and why would people in their millions purchase them? You might answer with another one of the marketing terms I looked up
'herd mentality' but I know quite a few artists, film makers, colorists and developers who might take offence at such a suggestion as they opt to use commercial tools simply because they get the job done without compromises. The free tools on offer often have short comings and, as I described in my last reply, the limitations in open source raw libraries can restrict or limit development.
I'm not detracting from any OS app developer because I know they can be as dedicated as commercial devs and, if you support them, and their tools are good enough for you then who is going to argue with that? Certainly not me.
QuoteAgain, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to prejudice you or anyone possibly working with/for you. It's just that, if your product has no advantage over a free/open implementation, I think no one should buy it. I can think in a recent example like this: corporations were selling certificate authority for many time; "Let's Encrypt" implement a free/open implementation doing the exact (or better) same thing. Now everyone is going to Let's Encrypt. The same should happen with any product that does not do it's job. Contrary to what marketers say, quality is very important. You can do money with basically anything, but not everything keep itself on top of others if it has no advantages over these other alternatives.
I have stated quite clearly what the advantages are and the added value that comes with Cinelog. If you don't value that then simply don't buy it.
Regardless of your initial statement above, you seem to have a jaded view towards what I offer but Cinelog is not 'Let's Encrypt' and there is no 'fake news' mentality at work here. Regardless of your insinuations I am perfectly happy to respond here to your questions and will always answer as clearly as I can, within the limits of protecting Cinelog IP. However, if you again choose to imply dishonesty or question the integrity of myself or other users without foundation, I will simply ignore you.
Andy600 keeps contributing detailed input about color science, working with ML raw video in post production and shares his ideas for possible improvements of the MLV format. He doesn't only try to sell a product, he shares a hell lot of crucial technical input no one else figured out or at least shared to that degree and detail with the community. No matter if you bought or used any of his products or none, he's helped a lot of users in the past with color correction/grading workflow problems and understanding the concept of color spaces etc. - If you ask him "What's the best way to grade my MLV files without Cinelog", be sure Andy gives you the best answer possible no matter what. He has proven this time and time again on this forum.
Quoteit provides an effective scene-referred processing capability in an app (ACR) that is strictly display-referred and bypasses any requirement to use image-adaptive filters (that will cause flicker). That might sound like marketing spiel but it is factual.
Yup. Confirmed.
@bpv5P
My answer before was only meant as a quick tip, nothing else. You seemed to need one.
By the way. Here is an open source tip to get you towards scene referred in acr(check link below). You will still have to build the math based log(and put into the dcp file) and account for color but it is a start.
One reason I started poking around with this is actually based on amasement of dynamic range I spotted from cinelog dcp examples.
http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13512.msg172443#msg172443
@Danne - Linear in DNGPE only removes the tone curve so it's still producing a display-referred image and can only work display-referred. Try it with a very high DR image and you'll get clipping.
A lot of calculations are needed to get ACR to produce Cinelog-C colorspace for any particular camera (every camera is different) and it simply can't be done with DNGPE because the matrix controls will always snap relative to the internal processing space (Cinelog-C is outside of this) and the curve points are very limited with relatively coarse interpolation so transformed RGB values are not precise enough for an accurate log conversion. The Cinelog curve still uses ACR's interpolation but applied to 4096 control points.
Pulling highlights down with the Parametric curve in DNGPE is really just faking highlight recovery with no real gains i.e. once you render with those settings you are just getting a flattened image with compromised highlights because you have stretched and/or compressed the spread of code values with no mathematical way to get them back. i.e. there will be large differences in the amount of information contained in one stop compared to the next. Some stops will have more information and some much less information than required - this ultimately leads to less latitude but more chance of banding and other artifacts.
Generally speaking, a log conversion will spread the code values more efficiently and equally between all stops and because you know the CVs input and transformed values you can put them back with the inverse, anti-log formula - thus scene-linear (relative to light).
With Cinelog profiles a known RGB value can be input, transformed with the profile and output in AE then reverted to the input value (relative to the CCT) using the math built into the inverse transforms. The gamut transform is calculated dynamically and relative to the user selected white balance settings i.e. it is recalculated continually as you move the white balance and tint sliders making it more accurate for the chosen white balance than a fixed CCT plus I also use ARRI's recommended chromatic adaptation (CAT02) not Bradford for the calculations. Beyond that I can't divulge anything else :)
QuoteGenerally speaking, a log conversion will spread the code values more efficiently and equally between all stops and because you know the CVs input and transformed values
You can fit in 4096 points into the dcp profile which in itself is pretty neat. I never seen any dcp profiles from adobe using this. Was it ever intended for this? Now how to get hold of that conversion chart. Would be pretty neat to have lets say cineon dcp in acr :P
Quote from: Danne on July 19, 2017, 02:17:21 AM
You can fit in 4096 points into the dcp profile which in itself is pretty neat. I never seen any dcp profiles from adobe using this. Was it ever intended for this?
No. Check out the DNG SDK for the basics. There are also some undocumented and often illogical things to ACR that dictate what you can and can't do with profiles.
Quote from: Danne on July 19, 2017, 02:17:21 AM
Now how to get hold of that conversion chart.
There is no conversion chart as such only math. I started out with spread sheets then CTL then custom Python scripts but there is still a degree of manual intervention required for building and testing each profile.
Quote from: Danne on July 19, 2017, 02:17:21 AM
Would be pretty neat to have lets say cineon dcp in acr :P
Cinelog-C is Cineon in terms of gamma already but Cineon without the gamut mapping of Cinelog-C can still clip color. I know because I have extensively modeled, tried and tested each and every log curve and full log colorspaces in ACR.
QuoteCinelog-C is Cineon in terms of gamma already but Cineon without the gamut mapping of Cinelog-C can still clip color. I know because I have extensively modeled, tried and tested each and every log curve and full log colorspaces in ACR.
Does it mean that cineon gamma acts different from applied as a 1D lut in a nle as opposed to applying the same gamma curve through acr? Color is affected differently/clipped?
I Just bought the bundle but can't get started since the user guide is in the membership area of the site and I get some weird registration error.
Wrote a support ticket earlier today.
Getting slightly impatient as I can't get started on the project that I bought it for :)
Would anyone care to send me a link or a copy of the userguide for Resolve while I wait?
I know that it is a pretty straightforward workflow, just wanna make sure that I get everything right from the start.
Much obliged/ Rune
Try PM'ing Andy600 here on ml forums, that should get his attention.
Cheers
Hi,
Bought Cinelog 4 years ago :) Never included it in my workflow, don't know why, didn't go that way.
Just started reading again about it a while back to see if this workflow could save me some space when archieve footage. Recently started to work with a UHD workflow with DNxHR HQ as an end product. Realised that there is no 10 bit codec from Avid only 8 or 12 bit. DNxHR HQX in UHD takes 83mb/s and it's 12-bit similar to what a 16-bit CDNG files takes up at 1080p.
"Transcoding your DNG or Cinema DNG footage to Cinelog-C in an intermediate 4:4:2 or 4:4:4 (recommended)
video format such as ProRes or DNxHD offers not only significant storage savings but enables you to archive your footage"
Above, from Cinelog
Is it any other advantages of working with Cinelog other then saving space while the footage is in computer?
Didn't think I will continue to use this terrific 5D3 with ML camera for 4 years when I started using it, will change when a a camera features of the FS7 (also released 4 years ago) is availible in a Canon/Sony/Panasonic "DSLR" house. GH5 is very close but the 60 fps in good resolution isn't 10 bit.
What archive footage codec do you all use with Cinelog? 8, 10 or 12 bit?
Best Regards
I render to Cineform 12 bit in cinelog. You save a little space comparred to uncompressed CinemaDNG but i'd imagine you would save more space converting your mlv's to lossless compressed cinemadng or archive the lossless mlv's (if you recorded lossless). I have not looked at the numbers, but i think that if lets say you have 1GB Lossless MLV, uncompress it to CinemaDng (roughly 1.4 gb avg) and then render to cineform 12 bit, i think the cineform file would be more than 1GB or roughly around that. Maybe a little less than the lossless mlv.
There is also cineform 10 bit YUV, takes up a lot less space than 12 bit RGBA.
Quote from: Kharak on April 06, 2018, 12:58:35 PM
... or archive the lossless mlv's (if you recorded lossless).
You can convert your normal MLV's to lossless MLV's via MLVApp - saves space and you don't loose anything! ;) (okay... you loose some time for converting) :P
I love Cinelog-c , but the time I spent importing to AE then render every single shot is not fun....Can someone give me an idea how this process can be in some way improved, I don't mind to import one by one of the shots, but creating the timelines and render them is the part that is time consuming and boring. I have been looking around, found the great smartimport2 script, but that does not work with the latest AE only with the original CC 12.2, which I don't have. How do you guys process your shots? workflow?....Andy600 , DeafEyeJedi any advice??? Thank you in advance.
By Timeline, i suppose you mean Compositions. The AE Cinelog route requires some manual labour, but there are ways of speeding it up, with the help of tricks and familarizing yourself with Keyshortcuts. And turning yourself in to a robot for 15-30 mins.
First of, if you are Upscaling in AE or not, this method will speed up the process significantly, but especially if you are upscaling. To speed up the upscaling process significantly, it requires that you record mlv with audio, so that you have .wav files in the folder. If not you will have to go by each comp and ctrl+k for comp settings and setting the preferred resolution for every comp.
Step 1. Create a new empty composition from scratch with the resolution and framerate you want, just call it 'Settings', not from any file in the Project. If you create composition from a sequence. All subsequent compositions will be in the original resolution..
Step 2. Multi import all dng sequences and .wav files from sequence folders, i recommend you first import the .wav file then the sequence, set ACR setting, WB, Cinelog, exposure etc.
Step 3. You have imported all files. Select all .wav files, make sure you select from top to bottom to keep the shot order, right-click and click 'New comp from selection'. AE will make a composition for each .wav file with the setting you made in the original composition e.g. 2560x1440 for 2k upscale and preferred framerate. This will also correctly name each comp as the shot name e.g. M20-1645
Step 4. Manual labour starts, all your sequences should be in their right order in the project window. Click 'type' if you want to group sequences together. Now drag and drop the sequence to the composition on top of the .wav, go through all compositions, repeating the drag and drop, i find it fastest that you only do the drag and drop and not start fitting the comp to frame or anything else, this, to keep the work repetitive and fast.
Step 5. All sequences and sound files are in their respected compositions. Go through each composition, select the sequence and hit Ctrl+alt+F to fit frame to comp size and then click the bicubic upscale next to the sequence in each comp select next composition and repeat. Make sure you upscale to the right Ratio, otherwise Ctrl+alt+F will stretch it to fit. If you are not sure of the Ratio, because your recorded in a weird resolution or for other reasons, you can hit ctrl+alt+shift+H to 'Stretch to Width' and you will see a black border or the frame extends over the Composition.
Step 6. Apply adjustment layers for NR, Opencolor IO etc.
Let me know how it goes.
Quote from: tigerbengal2009 on April 20, 2018, 02:07:13 AM
I love Cinelog-c , but the time I spent importing to AE then render every single shot is not fun....Can someone give me an idea how this process can be in some way improved, I don't mind to import one by one of the shots, but creating the timelines and render them is the part that is time consuming and boring. I have been looking around, found the great smartimport2 script, but that does not work with the latest AE only with the original CC 12.2, which I don't have. How do you guys process your shots? workflow?....Andy600 , DeafEyeJedi any advice??? Thank you in advance.
Use the Smart Import 2 script for Adobe After Effects. It saves me so much time, and I think you will enjoy. If you have any questions please let me know. Here is a link: https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13354.0
- Paul
Quote from: Kharak on April 06, 2018, 12:58:35 PM
I render to Cineform 12 bit in cinelog. You save a little space comparred to uncompressed CinemaDNG but i'd imagine you would save more space converting your mlv's to lossless compressed cinemadng or archive the lossless mlv's (if you recorded lossless). I have not looked at the numbers, but i think that if lets say you have 1GB Lossless MLV, uncompress it to CinemaDng (roughly 1.4 gb avg) and then render to cineform 12 bit, i think the cineform file would be more than 1GB or roughly around that. Maybe a little less than the lossless mlv.
There is also cineform 10 bit YUV, takes up a lot less space than 12 bit RGBA.
Quote from: masc on April 06, 2018, 09:23:43 PM
You can convert your normal MLV's to lossless MLV's via MLVApp - saves space and you don't loose anything! ;) (okay... you loose some time for converting) :P
Hi, late reply here sry. Thanks for your answer. Yes a good one would be to compress MLV or the CDNG a bit so its still 14 bit, something like ProresRAW or something just for storage in computer.
I always upscale my footage to 4k, mostly because the bitrate is more then the resolution increase on Youtube/Vimeo, so the quality is much better in 4k/UHD. That's why Cinelog-C doesn't suite me at all.
My workflow will still continue that it is but I will take your advice and look at ways to compress it a bit, something like ProresRAW or more like Avid DNxHR equivalent would be terrific.
Since I think the connection with the XML workflow between Premiere Pro and Davinci Resolve, I started to do everything in Davinci Resolve Studio with edit and grade, quite sweet actually.
Quote from: Kharak on April 20, 2018, 05:45:36 PM
By Timeline, i suppose you mean Compositions. The AE Cinelog route requires some manual labour, but there are ways of speeding it up, with the help of tricks and familarizing yourself with Keyshortcuts. And turning yourself in to a robot for 15-30 mins.
First of, if you are Upscaling in AE or not, this method will speed up the process significantly, but especially if you are upscaling. To speed up the upscaling process significantly, it requires that you record mlv with audio, so that you have .wav files in the folder. If not you will have to go by each comp and ctrl+k for comp settings and setting the preferred resolution for every comp.
Step 1. Create a new empty composition from scratch with the resolution and framerate you want, just call it 'Settings', not from any file in the Project. If you create composition from a sequence. All subsequent compositions will be in the original resolution..
Step 2. Multi import all dng sequences and .wav files from sequence folders, i recommend you first import the .wav file then the sequence, set ACR setting, WB, Cinelog, exposure etc.
Step 3. You have imported all files. Select all .wav files, make sure you select from top to bottom to keep the shot order, right-click and click 'New comp from selection'. AE will make a composition for each .wav file with the setting you made in the original composition e.g. 2560x1440 for 2k upscale and preferred framerate. This will also correctly name each comp as the shot name e.g. M20-1645
Step 4. Manual labour starts, all your sequences should be in their right order in the project window. Click 'type' if you want to group sequences together. Now drag and drop the sequence to the composition on top of the .wav, go through all compositions, repeating the drag and drop, i find it fastest that you only do the drag and drop and not start fitting the comp to frame or anything else, this, to keep the work repetitive and fast.
Step 5. All sequences and sound files are in their respected compositions. Go through each composition, select the sequence and hit Ctrl+alt+F to fit frame to comp size and then click the bicubic upscale next to the sequence in each comp select next composition and repeat. Make sure you upscale to the right Ratio, otherwise Ctrl+alt+F will stretch it to fit. If you are not sure of the Ratio, because your recorded in a weird resolution or for other reasons, you can hit ctrl+alt+shift+H to 'Stretch to Width' and you will see a black border or the frame extends over the Composition.
Step 6. Apply adjustment layers for NR, Opencolor IO etc.
Let me know how it goes.
Hi Kharak thank you for your detail explanation and for taking the time to help me, in my case I am using 60fps footage so I have no sound with them, and in your procedure I have to had sound. I am trying to simplify , automate the procedure to get the masters only, I will color correct them later either in fcpx or in davinci resolve. I learnt some tricks from your post, really appreciate that.
Quote from: PaulHarwood856 on April 27, 2018, 09:36:04 PM
Use the Smart Import 2 script for Adobe After Effects. It saves me so much time, and I think you will enjoy. If you have any questions please let me know. Here is a link: https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13354.0
- Paul
Hi Paul, if you read again my post I said I would like to use smartimport2, but it does not work with adobe after effect 2018, I don't get the timeline for each video, it does nothing. There is a new version? seems that smartimport2 only works with Adobe After Effect cc, it might work with cc 2014 according to some guys.
There is something else I could try to make it to work Paul, otherwise I am looking around trying to find After effect cc, Thanks for your advice
Al
Quote from: tigerbengal2009 on May 04, 2018, 01:06:15 AM
Hi Paul, if you read again my post I said I would like to use smartimport2, but it does not work with adobe after effect 2018, I don't get the timeline for each video, it does nothing. There is a new version? seems that smartimport2 only works with Adobe After Effect cc, it might work with cc 2014 according to some guys.
There is something else I could try to make it to work Paul, otherwise I am looking around trying to find After effect cc, Thanks for your advice
Al
Hey tigerbengal2009,
I'm currently using Adobe After Effects CC 2018 (Version 15.0.1 - Build 73) and Smart Import 2 is working. This is the version that works with Miraizon ProRes 4444 XQ (Version 2) before Adobe stopped supporting 32 bit Quicktime.
This video by DeafEyeJedi might help you: https://vimeo.com/130834452 (https://vimeo.com/130834452)
He's very helpful on this forum.
He's on Mac.
I'm going to be away for a few days, but I'll be glad to help you pinpoint what the issue is. You can try looking where you put the script for Smart Import 2, if it's in the right location. I currently have it working on Windows 10 in: Local Disk (C): / Program Files / Adobe / Adobe After Effects CC 2018 / Support Files / Scripts
Also, try placing Smart Import as well as Smart Import 2 both in that location.
We'll figure this out, not to worry!
- Paul Harwood
Is there a way to use cinelog-C and then apply a rec.709 lut directly in an external field monitor/recorder?
I intend to do video capturing to PC for live streaming through vMix or some other live streaming software.
Does anyone know how the Cinelog-C Full Colorspace Transform LUTs compare to DaVinci Resolve's Color Space Transform OFX in terms of quality and accuracy of transforming the image's colorspace?
I watched a tutorial recently that stated the Color Space Transform OFX plugin in Resolve had the advantage of controls such as Luminance Mapping to better accurately handle things such as highlight rolloff more so than Colorspace Transform LUTs would. However, given the quality product that are the Cinelog-C LUTs, I was uncertain if this would apply to them and if they do something different than other standard Colorspace Transform LUTs would.
I don't know the ins and outs, but Cinelog is/was supposedly mathemathically correct where Resolve was leaving some parts of transforms in the ballpark.. but last i checked on this was in Resolve 12, this might have changed since then. And i never personally used Cinelog in resolve, only in Adobe.
I personally go with what just works snd have switched completely to Resolve. I cant say i miss Cinelog, though it was very nice when I did use it in AE.
Quote from: Kharak on March 12, 2019, 10:40:34 AM
...I cant say i miss Cinelog, though it was very nice when I did use it in AE.
That's the key... Adobe allows for us to use OpenColorIO (OCIO) via AE and that is a critical piece to be able to use OCIO as a plug-in when required whether we like the time consuming route or not. Ha.
Just bumping this thread to show how vital Cinelog-C still is up to this day... Keep your support coming along for @Andy600 in order to keep this hidden gem afloat!
Shot on 7D in 2496 × 1134, 2496x1198 12-bit RAW w 11-20 Tokina @ 11mm in 2.8 and here are the comparisons for shits & giggles (including the original dng's):
Adobe Standard(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772264817_c03872f984.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hiQB8x)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772359517_7f82786bb6.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hiR6hi)
Cinelog-C(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772264322_3831900e8f.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hiQAZ1)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772154416_ffe355a9cc.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hiQ3j5)
Cinelog-C Rec709(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48771726098_1b9040dc40.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hiMQZh)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/48772351827_d15df818b4.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2hiR3ZH)
7D 2.5K DNG's: https://mega.nz/#F!O4sShSxY!c8dbOfhhCJtJvmLY-htgxA
@Andy600 -- I just upgraded to Catalina and thus had to update Adobe Photoshop in order to run and now I've lost myself into a puddle of mud where I can't seem to find Camera Profiles within PS until I kept diggin' through and found them in...
https://vimeo.com/368938990
Was this to be expected? If so, maybe we should update the guidelines?
What's with Adobe making it even more difficult for us users? Gotta love using Cinelog-C stuff for RAW photos.
Especially if you want to mimic the film look that @hyalinejim created by combining Cinelog-C with Ektar 100 LUT's (https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=19338.0Ektar%20100%20LUT's). It's indeed quite magical how it turns out!
Hey @Andy600 . Cinelog is still my favourite way to work with ML Footage, but as MLVFS doesnt seem to support some of the new compression formats, slomo and such, at least on all my Mac systems, MLVApp is now the most streamlined method.
But at this stage we have to convert everything to cDNG in MLVApp, then do the Davinci method from the guide on your site.
Is there a way we can get a Cinelog profile for MLVApp please to make this a one step process??
I've tried selecting BMDFilm in MLVApp and applying the BMD-Film to Cinelog LUT but the result looks wrong and very different to how it looks back when I could use MLVFS.
While we're at it, ever going to get some more looks in the LUT bank?
Cheers!