Cinelog - True logspace conversion for DNG and CinemaDNG footage

[marekk]

New video:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=11779.0

mlv -> mlv_dump -> [Resolve -> Cinelog -> Arri Log-C -> Prores 4444] -> FCPX

[marekk]

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

[Jpb1138]

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...

[dia3olik]

jpb, which iso you used on the scenes on the bridge? thanks!!

[Jpb1138]

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.

[morsafr]

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:

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!

[Jpb1138]

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.

[Jpb1138]

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uwsxk3snih7zlw9/M27-0505.000400.dng

here is a link to the dng file requested.

[morsafr]

Thanks for the file Jpb1138!

[kgv5]

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.

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

[dmk]

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

Export from Premiere as Cineform for master or H264 for web

?

[morsafr]

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.

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.

[Jpb1138]

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.

[dubzeebass]

14 bit raw vs. 10/12 bit prores is one reason. Also raw has more data period.

[kgv5]

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.

[50Deezil]

I guess my question is which look do you prefer?    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.

[dmk]

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!

[arturochu]

how are the Log-C luts cooking? btw, are they gonna be for resolve or acr or both of them?

[Jbowdach]

h cinelog applied.

[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

[Jbowdach]

When? 

+1 second this when??

[artyg]

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!!

                     

[delrosestephen]

Just bought the Cinelog LUT for Resolve last night. Very impressed! Most accurate Log conversion I've seen for the 5D so far!

[jemabaris]

am i the only one still waiting for a bmd -> log-c lut?

[dubzeebass]

BMD - > Cinelog - > Log-c is included.

[MennoB]

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?