I'm not sure I agree with your testing method here. In all of your cine tests you are clipping both your highlights and your shadows! The problem is we don't know by how much. If you preserve either the highlights or the shadows then we might have a better idea. Cine and log aren't meant to bring back detail or highlights, you still can't over expose them because there is no information in the footage to bring back. Thank you for taking the time to make this video and thanks for labeling the footage , that was really cool. I kept trying to click on your timeline!! hahaha!!!! The curve in V-log is all about the highlights and thus you are supposed to expose two stops over with vlog compared to the other settings in camera. This is why keeping the same settings for all the profiles makes no sense.
+Nakean Wickliff sometimes you need to expose v-log L a little different than the other profiles - but if you set proper exposure in 1 mode, it should be pretty close in all the modes. I've had great success dialing in my exposure with a gray card in v-log L and then switching to CinelikeV or portrait as a quick "faux-LUT" check The nice thing about V-Log L is that you can overexposed a little and still keep those highlights for grading up or down later in post. This test was just meant to show that highlights that clip in CinelikeV arent necessarily going to clip in V-Log L and I've seen that to be the case on a number of shoots.
***** I don't think you're understanding how v-log works. It's a log curve not a linear line like the other profiles. It shoves all the data to the right of the exposure curve. You don't sometimes need to expose differently. You ALWAYS expose log differently. For V-log it's +2 EV whatever your gray card says. There's a ton of info on it online. You can't just set a single exposure and call them equal. You have to set the right exposure for the specific profile you're filming in. 2 stops is not close, that's 6 clicks of your aperture/shutter/iso. That's huge, especially when recording internal 8bit 4:2:0 with almost zero wiggle room. Just like a foot race, all runners (profiles) need to start with there hands on the starting line. You're starting line should be your highlights as it's impossible to bring any of that detail back no matter what profile you're recording in. For-V-log 79IRE is where it clips. For the other profiles it's 100. ALso, did you know that your ISO jumps from 200 to 400 when switching from the other profiles to log?
I agree with Nekean, its a wrong hypothesis that leads to wrong conclusions if not treated objectively. Log shooting requires compensation in the way you exposed, what you shoot with so you can maximize it and skills in post as well as the LUT quality and or manual grading. Its not point and shoot profile its one that offers benefits if you know how to shoot with it and how to maximized your results in post.
Sorry guys but I have to strongly disagree with you. Shooting log is, by all means, extending the dynamic range in both directions. Standard, Cine-D and Cine-V are S-Curve type gammas, they pack both highlights and shadows in a very destructive manner to increase perceived contrast on nowadays low dynamic range monitors. Log curves, on the other hand, have a very linear way of describing the light falling on the sensor, letting you decide during grading how you want to tone map the full dynamic range available. The standard way of using log IS to expose exactly the way you would with a standard gamma curve, this test is perfectly accurate, I stand by Stronz. This doesn't mean that overexposing log is wrong per sé, it is a technique, sometimes referred to as TTR, intended to optimise Signal to Noise Ratio by shifting the extra dynamic range from the highlights to the shadows, decreasing the overall noise in the picture. However, it is not by any means the preferred way, and certainly not in all situations. All professional cameras and even now most DSLR type cameras featuring log/raw recording provide Lookup Tables to ensure you actually don't even look at any log type picture but a standard gamma type one instead. Just think a minute about it, would you always overexpose your stills when you shoot raw? Probably not, because you're actually monitoring the JPEG when it shows up on your screen...
I think the correct way to shoot cinelike d is to underexpose a bit. The shadow detail of cinelike d is better than cinelike v. I use panasonic g7 and don't have v log.
Pietro Corbetta don't see any problem in low iso when using cinelike d. Also, I often downscale 4k to export 1080p. The exported video are very sharp, even at high iso or underexposed to preserve highlight. I think having noise is better than highlight clipping.
Guess you are right!! In Rome by bike, Gh4 based (Yuri Palma), that is our benchmark, now, in mft video production, author said that he has used both Cinelike (well, with Metabones XL, so, another fact to be considered). In an interview Yuri explained that he doesn't use V Log without an external recorder because in color grading (he is a real Master in such an area) bending are then a strong issue
Hey Stronz, thanks for doing this I really like your videos, but this test is wrong, 400 ISO on Cinelike-D is 800 iso on V-Log, that's why you didn't over expose the image with v-log in your test.
Brilliant. I'm shooting cinelike D and would be interested to know why you prefer cinelike D. Also I'm wanting to purchase an external recorder for the gh4, the aputure fine hd vsII is garbage.Will be buying the gh5 when it comes out, should I wait for that before getting a recorded?
Great video! I really want to get vlog for my gh4 but I don't have an external recorder and I'm really not planning to buy one anytime soon... Do you think Vlog is a good option if shooting internally? Or should I just stick with cinelike V and cinelike D?
+Salvador Marquez It depends on your projects and the amount of quality you expect out of an internal 8-bit codec. V-Log L will give you more dynamic range but it doesn't always grade the easiest and you really are pushing the codec. The results you get may be acceptable in your perspective but other people may find it unacceptable. Just comes down to the shooter. V-Log L has it's place but it definitely is better if you use an external recorder however, that comes with bigger file sizes and the advantage may not be worth it depending on what type of footage you shoot. Basically, the whole thing is really subjective and there isn't a right or wrong answer.
+Stronz Vanderploeg first of all thanks for answering you're videos are helpful.. I agree with you and I think vlog can be helpful in some situations when you need more dinamic range. When are you gonna pick the winner of vlog?
+Greg Best Yeah, probably part lighting and probably part not using a LUT or doing any special color work. Just wanted to touch on dynamic range. V-Log L comes with a whole extra load of baggage when it comes to color.
I don't get if you need to shoot V-Log in order to get the most out color grading, Are you using Color Finale? Do you find that your images are better using V-Log than Cine filters in GH4? Lastly, I don't know about you, but I would be up against a wall to use 1600 ISO in the GH4, it's so so grainy for me. What lens were you using?
Vlog isn't for color grading though you have to grade it. It's for capturing high dynamic range(light and dark) and the side effect is having to color grade. It's a trade off! You get better highlights and shadows but you have to add the color back in the process and many feel you cant truly add it back once its gone with an 8 bit codec.
Yeah, you get this additional f-stop or two of dynamic range but you're risking terrible color banding when recording this in 8 bit 4:2:0. There is simply a limit of how much internal codec can handle and v-log is, in general, too much. As I mentioned somewhere else, it becomes really apparent when you go and actually shoot stuff. Check for example what Cine-* and Vlog are doing to a clear sky gradient when pushed just a little bit. In my experience - internally recorded vlog falls apart pretty damn quick. On the other hand, in 10 bit 4:2:2... Holy fuck, vlog is awesome for a camera in that price range.
+I.C.E. Entertainment Well, you have to remember that you are not working with RAW here. You are working with what internal codec digested during the recording. To put it really simple - if you throw too much information at an 8 bit 4:2:0 100mbps codec, it will choke on all that stuff. Cine-D is acceptable, V-Log in a lot of cases is too much.
Brillant, as usual !
I'm not sure I agree with your testing method here. In all of your cine tests you are clipping both your highlights and your shadows! The problem is we don't know by how much. If you preserve either the highlights or the shadows then we might have a better idea. Cine and log aren't meant to bring back detail or highlights, you still can't over expose them because there is no information in the footage to bring back. Thank you for taking the time to make this video and thanks for labeling the footage , that was really cool. I kept trying to click on your timeline!! hahaha!!!!
The curve in V-log is all about the highlights and thus you are supposed to expose two stops over with vlog compared to the other settings in camera. This is why keeping the same settings for all the profiles makes no sense.
+Nakean Wickliff sometimes you need to expose v-log L a little different than the other profiles - but if you set proper exposure in 1 mode, it should be pretty close in all the modes. I've had great success dialing in my exposure with a gray card in v-log L and then switching to CinelikeV or portrait as a quick "faux-LUT" check
The nice thing about V-Log L is that you can overexposed a little and still keep those highlights for grading up or down later in post. This test was just meant to show that highlights that clip in CinelikeV arent necessarily going to clip in V-Log L and I've seen that to be the case on a number of shoots.
***** I don't think you're understanding how v-log works. It's a log curve not a linear line like the other profiles. It shoves all the data to the right of the exposure curve. You don't sometimes need to expose differently. You ALWAYS expose log differently. For V-log it's +2 EV whatever your gray card says. There's a ton of info on it online. You can't just set a single exposure and call them equal. You have to set the right exposure for the specific profile you're filming in. 2 stops is not close, that's 6 clicks of your aperture/shutter/iso. That's huge, especially when recording internal 8bit 4:2:0 with almost zero wiggle room.
Just like a foot race, all runners (profiles) need to start with there hands on the starting line. You're starting line should be your highlights as it's impossible to bring any of that detail back no matter what profile you're recording in. For-V-log 79IRE is where it clips. For the other profiles it's 100. ALso, did you know that your ISO jumps from 200 to 400 when switching from the other profiles to log?
I agree with Nekean, its a wrong hypothesis that leads to wrong conclusions if not treated objectively. Log shooting requires compensation in the way you exposed, what you shoot with so you can maximize it and skills in post as well as the LUT quality and or manual grading. Its not point and shoot profile its one that offers benefits if you know how to shoot with it and how to maximized your results in post.
Sorry guys but I have to strongly disagree with you. Shooting log is, by all means, extending the dynamic range in both directions. Standard, Cine-D and Cine-V are S-Curve type gammas, they pack both highlights and shadows in a very destructive manner to increase perceived contrast on nowadays low dynamic range monitors. Log curves, on the other hand, have a very linear way of describing the light falling on the sensor, letting you decide during grading how you want to tone map the full dynamic range available. The standard way of using log IS to expose exactly the way you would with a standard gamma curve, this test is perfectly accurate, I stand by Stronz.
This doesn't mean that overexposing log is wrong per sé, it is a technique, sometimes referred to as TTR, intended to optimise Signal to Noise Ratio by shifting the extra dynamic range from the highlights to the shadows, decreasing the overall noise in the picture. However, it is not by any means the preferred way, and certainly not in all situations.
All professional cameras and even now most DSLR type cameras featuring log/raw recording provide Lookup Tables to ensure you actually don't even look at any log type picture but a standard gamma type one instead. Just think a minute about it, would you always overexpose your stills when you shoot raw? Probably not, because you're actually monitoring the JPEG when it shows up on your screen...
no i to jest porównanie panie Stronz :)
I think the correct way to shoot cinelike d is to underexpose a bit. The shadow detail of cinelike d is better than cinelike v. I use panasonic g7 and don't have v log.
Every time I shoot cinelike D, I wish I had shot cinelike V haha
Cinelike D is very noisy. If you underexpose maybe the dr will be ok, but there will be so much noise
Pietro Corbetta don't see any problem in low iso when using cinelike d. Also, I often downscale 4k to export 1080p. The exported video are very sharp, even at high iso or underexposed to preserve highlight. I think having noise is better than highlight clipping.
Guess you are right!! In Rome by bike, Gh4 based (Yuri Palma), that is our benchmark, now, in mft video production, author said that he has used both Cinelike (well, with Metabones XL, so, another fact to be considered). In an interview Yuri explained that he doesn't use V Log without an external recorder because in color grading (he is a real Master in such an area) bending are then a strong issue
Wan HL I
Hey Stronz, thanks for doing this I really like your videos, but this test is wrong, 400 ISO on Cinelike-D is 800 iso on V-Log, that's why you didn't over expose the image with v-log in your test.
Very interesting, Thank you.
Cheers, Pete
Higher ISO generally decreases Dynamic range.
Why don't you just shoot with the proper exposure?
Brilliant. I'm shooting cinelike D and would be interested to know why you prefer cinelike D. Also I'm wanting to purchase an external recorder for the gh4, the aputure fine hd vsII is garbage.Will be buying the gh5 when it comes out, should I wait for that before getting a recorded?
Great video! I really want to get vlog for my gh4 but I don't have an external recorder and I'm really not planning to buy one anytime soon... Do you think Vlog is a good option if shooting internally? Or should I just stick with cinelike V and cinelike D?
+Salvador Marquez It depends on your projects and the amount of quality you expect out of an internal 8-bit codec. V-Log L will give you more dynamic range but it doesn't always grade the easiest and you really are pushing the codec. The results you get may be acceptable in your perspective but other people may find it unacceptable. Just comes down to the shooter.
V-Log L has it's place but it definitely is better if you use an external recorder however, that comes with bigger file sizes and the advantage may not be worth it depending on what type of footage you shoot. Basically, the whole thing is really subjective and there isn't a right or wrong answer.
+Stronz Vanderploeg first of all thanks for answering you're videos are helpful.. I agree with you and I think vlog can be helpful in some situations when you need more dinamic range.
When are you gonna pick the winner of vlog?
+Stronz Vanderploeg *****your videos
Go wit cinelike on iso 400 or 200 and check if you still got more dynamic range
I have a gh4 and gh5 if I add v log to both will they look the same
Any input on the apparent increased shadow noise with V-LOG? The TV in the background looks much worse compared to the cinelike profiles.
Does GH4 give you Luminance levels of 16-235 when you're in V-Log?
What about the difference in shadow noise ?
Your walls turned green with vlog
+Greg Best Yeah, probably part lighting and probably part not using a LUT or doing any special color work. Just wanted to touch on dynamic range. V-Log L comes with a whole extra load of baggage when it comes to color.
Did you use 200mbit? Otherwise, it's useless to shoot Vlog imo
would you recommend buying the v-log l if recorded external 10 4:2:2 pro res
+iDeal yes but you have to be careful with it and know it's strengths and weaknesses
this is not right // why is the test set under single exposure?
I don't get if you need to shoot V-Log in order to get the most out color grading, Are you using Color Finale? Do you find that your images are better using V-Log than Cine filters in GH4? Lastly, I don't know about you, but I would be up against a wall to use 1600 ISO in the GH4, it's so so grainy for me. What lens were you using?
Vlog isn't for color grading though you have to grade it. It's for capturing high dynamic range(light and dark) and the side effect is having to color grade. It's a trade off! You get better highlights and shadows but you have to add the color back in the process and many feel you cant truly add it back once its gone with an 8 bit codec.
V-LOG looks like out of focus, isnt it?
i like your videos buddy
Дружище! Респект!
Yeah, you get this additional f-stop or two of dynamic range but you're risking terrible color banding when recording this in 8 bit 4:2:0. There is simply a limit of how much internal codec can handle and v-log is, in general, too much. As I mentioned somewhere else, it becomes really apparent when you go and actually shoot stuff. Check for example what Cine-* and Vlog are doing to a clear sky gradient when pushed just a little bit. In my experience - internally recorded vlog falls apart pretty damn quick.
On the other hand, in 10 bit 4:2:2... Holy fuck, vlog is awesome for a camera in that price range.
So wouldn't the others fall apart the same or even more so Cinelike D or Van for instance?
+I.C.E. Entertainment Well, you have to remember that you are not working with RAW here. You are working with what internal codec digested during the recording. To put it really simple - if you throw too much information at an 8 bit 4:2:0 100mbps codec, it will choke on all that stuff. Cine-D is acceptable, V-Log in a lot of cases is too much.
Terrible green, artifacts issues with V-Log L
It looks like V-logs sucks.... Some kind pale version...