Log shooting

[sh1209]

So in the past, I have attempted many times to see the benefit of shooting log footage. I’ve probably read a couple hundred hours worth of information regarding the subject. I’ve tried different ways of exposing and editing with various LUT‘s. I spent the last 2 to 3 days, Several hours doing various clips in highly controlled situations while I’m recovering from surgery. Every time in the past, as well as now, I still come back to the same conclusion. I see absolutely no reason for any normal person to be shooting log footage. There is absolutely zero discernible difference if you’re exposing correctly using a standard color profile in the camera. They claim more dynamic range and such but even pixel peeping, to my eye there is just no advantage whatsoever. I would like to hear others thoughts on this and if you do use log footage.

 

[Rudy Pohl]

So in the past, I have attempted many times to see the benefit of shooting log footage. I’ve probably read a couple hundred hours worth of information regarding the subject. I’ve tried different ways of exposing and editing with various LUT‘s. I spent the last 2 to 3 days, Several hours doing various clips in highly controlled situations while I’m recovering from surgery. Every time in the past, as well as now, I still come back to the same conclusion. I see absolutely no reason for any normal person to be shooting log footage. There is absolutely zero discernible difference if you’re exposing correctly using a standard color profile in the camera. They claim more dynamic range and such but even pixel peeping, to my eye there is just no advantage whatsoever. I would like to hear others thoughts on this and if you do use log footage.

Hi Steve,

My story is exactly the same as yours and just very recently I've given it another serious and lengthy try. My conclusions after many hours of shooting and editing in Canon Log 3 are exactly the same as yours when it comes to wildlife videography. I'm kind of pressed for time right now, but I'll add more to this post later.

Cheers,
Rudy

 

[sh1209]

Hi Steve,

My story is exactly the same as yours and just very recently have given it another serious try. My conclusions are exactly the same as yours. I'm kind of pressed for time right, but I'll add more to this post later.

Yeah, like you I have given it many attempts in the past to see little and most of the time no benefit. This time I put in several hours of work in extremely controlled environments and every single time the straight out of camera footage beats it. I’m beginning to think it’s just more YouTube BS and hogwash lol.

 

[Garfield]

Hi Steve;

I shoot Nikon but my experience is not dissimilar. Shooting log does provide more DR, but it's more difficult to grade in post (unless you just want to slap a LUT on) and frankly I find it just simpler to shoot H.265 10-bit in a flat picture file format. Not only is it very easy to grade but the camera denoises the raw image somewhat while it's compressing the image to 10-bit JPG so it's less work in post. I *do* have to be careful about exposing properly and in wide-dynamic scenes be willing to overexpose and blow the highlights, but that's usually just in the sky so I don't really care that much. A pro videographer (hello Nimi!) will no doubt prefer the wider DR of log and wider gamut provided by RAW, but as a rank amature that does this for fun, I'm happy just to get the shot and have learned not to get my knickers in a knot over colour grading. YMMV.

 

[sh1209]

Hi Steve;

I shoot Nikon but my experience is not dissimilar. Shooting log does provide more DR, but it's more difficult to grade in post (unless you just want to slap a LUT on) and frankly I find it just simpler to shoot H.265 10-bit in a flat picture file format. Not only is it very easy to grade but the camera denoises the raw image somewhat while it's compressing the image to 10-bit JPG so it's less work in post. I *do* have to be careful about exposing properly and in wide-dynamic scenes be willing to overexpose and blow the highlights, but that's usually just in the sky so I don't really care that much. A pro videographer (hello Nimi!) will no doubt prefer the wider DR of log and wider gamut provided by RAW, but as a rank amature that does this for fun, I'm happy just to get the shot and have learned not to get my knickers in a knot over colour grading. YMMV.

Very well said and it’s pretty much my thoughts it’s just much easier to go out and let the Camera do the work and most cases. There’s just no difference and I would say in a lot of cases as far better like you I shoot 10 bit 422 in HEVC on the Sony cameras. I normally use the standard profile and find even using this set up there still quite a bit of room for minor corrections in post. I’m sure there are people out there that do get an advantage from shooting in log, but I have certainly not seen that situation yet. I personally think it’s pretty amazing how well the camera does on its own at this point compared to earlier models.

 

[Nimi]

Here are some scenarios where log and RAW are overkill:

1. One sensor/camera, so no need to match clips
2. The look you're after is "natural"
3. You expose perfectly or within a stop
4. You're using a modern hybrid camera (not dedicated cine one)
5. Relatively normal scene, specifically nothing important in the shadows and no rapidly-changing lighting conditions
6. You're not getting paid for your output or effort
7. You're video is not reviewed by an editor/agency/client on a reference monitor before it is released.

 

[sh1209]

Here are some scenarios where log and RAW are overkill:

1. One sensor/camera, so no need to match clips
2. The look you're after is "natural"
3. You expose perfectly or within a stop
4. You're using a modern hybrid camera (not dedicated cine one)
5. Relatively normal scene, specifically nothing important in the shadows and no rapidly-changing lighting conditions
6. You're not getting paid for your output or effort
7. You're video is not reviewed by an editor/agency/client on a reference monitor before it is released.

Your assessment sounds spot on to me. I have revisited this several times over the years and always come to the same conclusion. I probably should let it go and shoot in a normal mode lol. It bugs me when I can figure something out and I really have given it a good amount of effort. Having said that, I am definitely done messing with it permanently because its just not needed.

 

[Rudy Pohl]

Here are my thoughts and experience with shooting Canon's C-Log3 profile with my Canon R5 camera and editing it in Davinci Resolve 18 & 19.

- Dynamic range is increased by 1 stop
- This is good for preserving highlights, but at the cost of noisier shadows
- The colours in Log are said to hold up better under severe editing processes, but mine have held just fine shooting a standard picture profile.

My experience doing outdoor wildlife videography
- It takes far more time and trouble to shoot in Log than in a standard picture profile
- I takes far more time and trouble to edit in Resolve, with or without LUTs
- With Log footage I am never able to get the level of clarity and contrast that I prefer. It's always rather dull and drab.
- When shot in low light and/or low contrast conditions it's impossible for me to make the footage look real and true to nature, usually it's dull and drab, with very noisy shadows.

My conclusions:
- To get only 1 additional f-stop of dynamic range, which is arguably not even noticeable most of the time, is definitely not worth all the downsides. These include, lots of extra time and trouble to shoot and edit, plus extra costs incurred for things like an ND filter system for multiple lenses which is also a lot of hassle. Especially with fast moving wildlife in rapidly changing conditions.
- I post all my videos only on YouTube and will likely never deliver them to clients on high-quality media like Blue-ray disks, so cannot justify all the time, trouble and expense.
- Also, it seems that there's a tendency out there in YouTube land to pursue "the cinematic film look" and shun the high contrast-bold colours of "the video" look. However, as a matter of personal preference I really don't like the dull, dark, low contrast filmic look when it comes wildlife in the outdoors. The outdoors and its creatures are not drab and dull looking with low contrast. Rather, they have bright, bold rich colours and are mostly high contrast in nature most of the time IMO.

Steve, your post has moved me to finally say good-bye to the Canon C-log3 profile. Perhaps something might change in the future, but in the meantime it is a major pain in the neck with some serious downsides (noisy shadows) with no discernable benefits.

I, like Steve, have found that if I pay careful attention to my exposures, which I always try to do, I rarely if ever blow out the highlights and in my opinion the footage looks far more life-like and appealing than footage shot in log.

There, I feel better already!
Rudy

 

[sh1209]

Here are my thoughts and experience with shooting Canon's C-Log3 profile with my Canon R5 camera and editing it in Davinci Resolve 18 & 19.

- Dynamic range is increased by 1 stop
- This is good for preserving highlights, but at the cost of noisier shadows
- The colours in Log are said to hold up better under severe editing processes, but mine have held just fine shooting a standard picture profile.

My experience doing outdoor wildlife videography
- It takes far more time and trouble to shoot in Log than in a standard picture profile
- I takes far more time and trouble to edit in Resolve, with or without LUTs
- With Log footage I am never able to get the level of clarity and contrast that I prefer. It's always rather dull and drab.
- When shot in low light and/or low contrast conditions it's impossible for me to make the footage look real and true to nature, usually it's dull and drab, with very noisy shadows.

My conclusions:
- To get only 1 additional f-stop of dynamic range, which is arguably not even noticeable most of the time, is definitely not worth all the downsides. These include, lots of extra time and trouble to shoot and edit, plus extra costs incurred for things like an ND filter system for multiple lenses which is also a lot of hassle. Especially with fast moving wildlife in rapidly changing conditions.
- I post all my videos only on YouTube and will likely never deliver them to clients on high-quality media like Blue-ray disks, so cannot justify all the time, trouble and expense.
- Also, it seems that there's a tendency out there in YouTube land to pursue "the cinematic film look" and shun the high contrast-bold colours of "the video" look. However, as a matter of personal preference I really don't like the dull, dark, low contrast filmic look when it comes wildlife in the outdoors. The outdoors and its creatures are not drab and dull looking with low contrast. Rather, they have bright, bold rich colours and are mostly high contrast in nature most of the time IMO.

Steve, your post has moved me to finally say good-bye to the Canon C-log3 profile. Perhaps something might change in the future, but in the meantime it is a major pain in the neck with some serious downsides (noisy shadows) with no discernable benefits.

I, like Steve, have found that if I pay careful attention to my exposures, which I always try to do, I rarely if ever blow out the highlights and in my opinion the footage looks far more life-like and appealing than footage shot in log.

There, I feel better already!
Rudy

Extremely well said and I couldn’t agree more. I feel like I’ve beat it to death at this point with trying to perfect it to no avail. I am very well versed in Final Cut Pro and certainly well versed in the use of my cameras. I consider myself a quick learner and that’s one of the things that has kept driving me to figure this out. At the end of the day, I don’t think there’s anything to figure out and honestly I am done permanently messing with it. The nonsense on YouTube is just that in my opinion and most should be taken with a grain of salt. I am not sure about Cannon but I think Nikon and Sony straight out of camera standard profile look great. I am glad to not be the only one to feel this way.

 

[Horshack]

From a technical POV log offers:

• Highest Dynamic Range
• Wider Color Gamut
• Highest tonal bit depth (on some cameras)
• Least amount of in-camera processing (ie, less "baked-in" sharpening, NR)

Basically what log offers is flexibility in post. The analogy I like to use is raw vs jpg for still images. You don't always need that flexibility, and when you don't it's certainly more convenient to shoot jpg.

 

[sh1209]

From a technical POV log offers:

• Highest Dynamic Range
• Wider Color Gamut
• Highest tonal bit depth (on some cameras)
• Least amount of in-camera processing (ie, less "baked-in" sharpening, NR)

Basically what log offers is flexibility in post. The analogy I like to use is raw vs jpg for still images. You don't always need that flexibility, and when you don't it's certainly more convenient to shoot jpg.

Yeah I realize that’s what it claims but even in highly controlled situations with my Sony A1 and A7RV I don’t see one iota difference in any parameter. In fact, no matter the lut or method of adjustment, SOOC just looks better. I’m sure, like everything there certainly is a use for it. I just haven’t found it lol. I always have liked learning anything I can about photography and videography but this is certainly an aspect that eludes me.

 

[Rudy Pohl]

From a technical POV log offers:

• Highest Dynamic Range
• Wider Color Gamut
• Highest tonal bit depth (on some cameras)
• Least amount of in-camera processing (ie, less "baked-in" sharpening, NR)

Basically what log offers is flexibility in post. The analogy I like to use is raw vs jpg for still images. You don't always need that flexibility, and when you don't it's certainly more convenient to shoot jpg.

Hi Horshack,

Firstly, thank you for chiming in and contributing to this discussion. As a Nikon user since 1978 I have seen and read some of your posts on the Nikon forums over the years and appreciate your wealth of knowledge and expertise in many technical matters and your willingness to share that knowledge with others.

From my limited understanding about Log profiles and their uses and benefits I understand and appreciate the points you mention above. All I am saying, and perhaps Steve is as well, is that for my own particular use case of doing outdoor wildlife videography which gets displayed only on social media for non-professional purposes, shooting in Log is simply not worth the extra time, trouble and expense.

As well, despite my best efforts in Davinci Resolve I am not able to produce the kind of crisp, punchy results with Log files that I can with footage shot with standard picture profiles on my Canon R5. I have used Resolve on average of 20 hours a week for the last 2 1/2 years bringing my total use to somewhere around 2,600 hours. Prior to this I worked professionally daily in Adobe Premier Pro for 3 years, and as far as photo editing I have used Photoshop almost daily for over 25 years, 15 of those professionally. I feel I can confidently say that I know how to edit digital images and video footage. Yet, despite my considerable hands-on experience I am unable to produce the kind of crisp, clear, contrasty images with deep colours in my log files that I am able to produce with those shot with regular picture profiles, whose look I far prefer.

I am not trying to make a general, blanket statement about shooting in Log or its benefits and saying that it is never worth it - far from it. For the right and necessary uses shooting in Log is essential. If I were shooting people where proper skin tones is mandatory or under certain lighting conditions or if I was having to achieve the much sought after cinematic "filmic" look, or under any of the conditions listed by Nimi above, then yes I would say that shooting in Log is absolutely required. I agree with all that you and Nimi wrote.

What I am saying is that for me personally with my use case and with my existing camera, the Canon R5, the increase in dynamic range of a single f-stop using the Canon Log 3 profile makes no real difference to speak of and the end result looks dull and drab to me.

Cheers,
Rudy

 

[Horshack]

Hi Horshack,

Firstly, thank you for chiming in and contributing to this discussion. As a Nikon user since 1978 I have seen and read some of your posts on the Nikon forums over the years and appreciate your wealth of knowledge and expertise in many technical matters and your willingness to share that knowledge with others.

From my limited understanding about Log profiles and their uses and benefits I understand and appreciate the points you mention above. All I am saying, and perhaps Steve is as well, is that for my own particular use case of doing outdoor wildlife videography which gets displayed only on social media for non-professional purposes, shooting in Log is simply not worth the extra time, trouble and expense.

As well, despite my best efforts in Davinci Resolve I am not able to produce the kind of crisp, punchy results with Log files that I can with footage shot with standard picture profiles on my Canon R5. I have used Resolve on average of 20 hours a week for the last 2 1/2 years bringing my total use to somewhere around 2,600 hours. Prior to this I worked professionally daily in Adobe Premier Pro for 3 years, and as far as photo editing I have used Photoshop almost daily for over 25 years, 15 of those professionally. I feel I can confidently say that I know how to edit digital images and video footage. Yet, despite my considerable hands-on experience I am unable to produce the kind of crisp, clear, contrasty images with deep colours in my log files that I am able to produce with those shot with regular picture profiles, whose look I far prefer.

I am not trying to make a general, blanket statement about shooting in Log or its benefits and saying that it is never worth it - far from it. For the right and necessary uses shooting in Log is essential. If I were shooting people where proper skin tones is mandatory or under certain lighting conditions or if I was having to achieve the much sought after cinematic "filmic" look, or under any of the conditions listed by Nimi above, then yes I would say that shooting in Log is absolutely required. I agree with all that you and Nimi wrote.

What I am saying is that for me personally with my use case and with my existing camera, the Canon R5, the increase in dynamic range of a single f-stop using the Canon Log 3 profile makes no real difference to speak of and the end result looks dull and drab to me.

Cheers,
Rudy

Thanks Rudy. I think we're on the same page. I've actually been considering doing a YT video about whether log is worth it, which I intended to cover both from a strict technical sense like DR and gamut but also in terms of effort and final result esp in matching the out-of-camera output.

 

[sh1209]

Thanks Rudy. I think we're on the same page. I've actually been considering doing a YT video about whether log is worth it, which I intended to cover both from a strict technical sense like DR and gamut but also in terms of effort and final result esp in matching the out-of-camera output.

That would be a great video and I would certainly watch it.

 

[sh1209]

One thing I would like to add to the thread is about the DJI Dlog footage. I have shot several times over the years with my DJI drones in log. Having said that, even dropping their factory LUT onto the footage pretty much completes it as long as exposure is nailed. Most of the time I don’t have to touch the color wheels/curves or anything else. Even still, while it looks good, it still looks no better than shooting in their normal mode. They do by far have the easiest to correct in post that I have tried. They also have another variant called DLOG M which is sorta in between full log and normal which grades even easier. With Sony footage, I have tried their factory LUTs, apples included slog luts and a few I have purchased on the web. It is an interesting subject to me and I admit I get completely obsessed with something I can’t figure out lol. I can now make the Sony footage look good but it just seems the normal sooc footage is always just a tad better. As Rudy stated, it’s also very difficult at times in the field to keep up with the exposure needed for log while filming moving critters in rapidly changing light. Bought a Sony a 6700 crop body for traveling. It has the same sensor as the FX 30 and will embed the Rec 709 lut into the footage in camera, but it still just never looks as good as the normal footage to me. S cinetone is another popular Sony log that supposedly doesn’t need corrections but to me always looks washed out.

 

[Rudy Pohl]

That would be a great video and I would certainly watch it.

Hi Horshack,

I thought I would share one last thought with you and this thread regarding Log profiles and one item in your list of benefits - wider color gamut.

This morning I Googled the question "What does wider color gamut mean?" And the Google AI answer I got back was this: "A wider color gamut means a device can produce a greater range of colors. This can result in more accurate and vibrant images."

Last Fall I did a rigorous comparison shooting C-log3 vs one of the standard picture profiles in my Canon R5. I shot some beautiful male Wood Ducks with both profiles in the same section of a pond on the same day in the same lighting conditions. The result was that the Wood Ducks shot with C-Log3 had noticeably fuller and richer colors. There was no mistake, the Wood Ducks shot in Log were clearly better looking colour-wise, which is the reason why I continued experimenting with shooting and editing Log files.

However, recently I have done more testing with C-log3 only this time I was shooting faint late afternoon pre-sunset skies in a rural countryside with wonderful soft pastel hues of pinks and blues and orange-reds. It is these images that I could not make look good regardless of what I did in Resolve. An additional downside was that the foregrounds, which were darker ploughed farm fields and fenceposts were filled with terrible noise which in my opinion were beyond recovery with NR. I had very carefully exposed the files so that no highlights were at risk of blowing out leaving just enough headroom so that the images were not needlessly under exposed being mindful of the shadows. Nevertheless, the shadows ended up under exposed and turned out pretty ugly. The sensor, even using C-Log3, did not have enough dynamic range to adequately handle those scenes. However, when shot with a preset picture profile the images turned out better, I'm guessing because of the baked processes in the camera like NR, etc.

All this is to say that despite my declaration yesterday that I'm done with Log, the better looking Wood Duck colours from last Fall's test continue to entice me. The saga continues....

Rudy

 

[NikonshooterRTFan]

I find no benefit to shooting in the advanced modes which require post processing correction like LOG, amongst any of my cameras, from Autel Evo Pro II drone to GoPro 13 to Nikon Z9. It's one of those "youtube features" like a "fast charging" option for your phone that a small minority rave over, but provides no real world benefit, and actually some drawbacks (the faster your phone battery charges, the faster its longevity is depleted, which is why Apple has a special mode that will slowly charge your phone over a full night automatically but some youtubers will insist they need a feature that will fully charge their battery in half an hour; likewise with LOG or other color-shifted video modes, you must do software tone mapping as your footage is unusable SOOC).

In fact, the only "special" mode I've ever seen that provides a marginal benefit is shooting HDR mode over "standard" in my GoPro. And you have to *really* stare at the side by side youtube videos for a *long* time to see the difference--and I wonder if they are cherry picking the scene, as surely there are some drawbacks to using HDR all the time or else that would just be the default "standard" shooting profile.

In other words just shooting the default H.265 or whatever hi def variant your camera offers is going to give you really great results. I *would* recommend using H.265 or HEVC or whatever the most current codec is over the older formats unless you are shooting for something like an instagram reel / cell phone 9:16 small screen (and I would honestly just use a cell phone for that and be done with it).

As to the "wider color gamut" that is a whole different can of worms but generally there is no benefit to wide color gamut unless we are talking about printing, where it is important to match your screen edit to your final print, and no one is printing video yet

 

[sh1209]

I find no benefit to shooting in the advanced modes which require post processing correction like LOG, amongst any of my cameras, from Autel Evo Pro II drone to GoPro 13 to Nikon Z9. It's one of those "youtube features" like a "fast charging" option for your phone that a small minority rave over, but provides no real world benefit, and actually some drawbacks (the faster your phone battery charges, the faster its longevity is depleted, which is why Apple has a special mode that will slowly charge your phone over a full night automatically but some youtubers will insist they need a feature that will fully charge their battery in half an hour; likewise with LOG or other color-shifted video modes, you must do software tone mapping as your footage is unusable SOOC).

In fact, the only "special" mode I've ever seen that provides a marginal benefit is shooting HDR mode over "standard" in my GoPro. And you have to *really* stare at the side by side youtube videos for a *long* time to see the difference--and I wonder if they are cherry picking the scene, as surely there are some drawbacks to using HDR all the time or else that would just be the default "standard" shooting profile.

In other words just shooting the default H.265 or whatever hi def variant your camera offers is going to give you really great results. I *would* recommend using H.265 or HEVC or whatever the most current codec is over the older formats unless you are shooting for something like an instagram reel / cell phone 9:16 small screen (and I would honestly just use a cell phone for that and be done with it).

As to the "wider color gamut" that is a whole different can of worms but generally there is no benefit to wide color gamut unless we are talking about printing, where it is important to match your screen edit to your final print, and no one is printing video yet

Well said and my thoughts entirely. I use 10 bit 422 HEVC on my Sony cameras with the standard color profile and think it looks great. Same with my DJI drone and Action 5 camera. I have found on the drones and action cameras that even following the 180 degree shutter rule provides no visible benefit. I normally do follow the 180 rule on my mirrorless bodies.

 

[PhilcTx]

When I first started with video I used regular color profiles. etc. But after some time and much futzing around it was soon obvious that many times the std profiles were just not up the task sometimes of handling the needed dynamic range encountered even for my amateur usage. This was with both Fuji and Sony cameras.

During this learning time it also soon became obvious to me that I pretty much sucked at doing "manual" color grading in Resolv. I was never happy with my video's color and it's lack of consistency.

In the later part of my journey I switched over to try shooting in Log. I used both Fuji's Log some until I sold the Fuj and also Sony Log. For my Sony's I finally zero'ed in on Gamma S-Log3 with mode S-Gamut3-Cine. These are commonly available in later Sony's as a preset Picture Profile.

Things began looking better. Except my color grading was still lacking.

Those hurdles were dealt with by buying the Phantom LUT set and learning how to setup and use a set of Nodes in Davinci Resolv courtesy of Cullen Kelly's YouTube channel. Now happy with my video's color and consistency. Don't think I could do same if using std color profiles.

 

[Rudy Pohl]

When I first started with video I used regular color profiles. etc. But after some time and much futzing around it was soon obvious that many times the std profiles were just not up the task sometimes of handling the needed dynamic range encountered even for my amateur usage. This was with both Fuji and Sony cameras.

During this learning time it also soon became obvious to me that I pretty much sucked at doing "manual" color grading in Resolv. I was never happy with my video's color and it's lack of consistency.

In the later part of my journey I switched over to try shooting in Log. I used both Fuji's Log some until I sold the Fuj and also Sony Log. For my Sony's I finally zero'ed in on Gamma S-Log3 with mode S-Gamut3-Cine. These are commonly available in later Sony's as a preset Picture Profile.

Things began looking better. Except my color grading was still lacking.

Those hurdles were dealt with by buying the Phantom LUT set and learning how to setup and use a set of Nodes in Davinci Resolv courtesy of Cullen Kelly's YouTube channel. Now happy with my video's color and consistency. Don't think I could do same if using std color profiles.

Thanks for sharing your experience of the journey, Phil. This is turning out to be a very interesting and helpful discussion thread.
Cheers,
Rudy