Cinelog - True logspace conversion for DNG and CinemaDNG footage

[Andy600]

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

[Andy600]

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

[chmee]

@Andy600
seems you forgot my question about compatibility with raw2cdng. i just read on your page, you use primarly 14bit-data?

[arturochu]

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

[Andy600]

@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.

[chmee]

thanks a lot.

[Andy600]

@Chmee - I've tested .raw and .mlv with the latest raw2cdng and it's working correctly with Cinelog and other DCPs in ACR 

I've amended our website info and added links to your app

Cheers!

[chmee]

@Andy600 cheeeriooo. thanks. regards chmee

[2FAST]

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.

[TrueIndigo]

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?

[kardolan]

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 !

[MGerard]

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.

[Andy600]

@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

[DavidSh]

Is there a video showing how to work with this tool?

[kardolan]

@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 !

[Andy600]

@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!  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.

[50Deezil]

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.

[Andy600]

@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

[MGerard]

Hi, I took some time yesterday to make a quick tutorial about my Cinelog / Resolve workflow.

Please enjoy.

[50Deezil]

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.

[CF]

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

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 !

[MGerard]

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.

[Andy600]

@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/

In the meantime, this may amuse you

Andy

[Andy600]

@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.

[reddeercity]

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 !