Hi I’m new to the whole high end camera thing. When I first got into shooting videos all the YouTubers were talking about C-log 3 when reviewing canon cameras. I recently for the first time heard about C-log 2. Is the difference that noticeable? What would be the differences?
Video: Upgraded Canon Log2 and New Canon Log3 at DVinfo.net
Am I getting this right? (C-LOG 2 vs. C-LOG 3)
C-Log2 vs S-Log3: what do you think will be a better match with Log C?
Newbie question: i have to choose between C-log 3 or RAW (and renting everything needed for RAW), What should i do?
What is the difference between Canon Log, Canon Log 2 and Canon Log 3?
The original Canon Log delivers a dynamic range of approximately 12 stops, Canon Log 2 up to 16 stops, and Canon Log 3 up to 14 stops. Canon Log 2 retains more detail in darker areas than Canon Log 3 but also features an elevated noise floor. Canon Log 3 is easier to grade thanks to producing a cleaner image and retains the same amount of highlight information as Canon Log 2.
What is Canon Log used for?
Canon Log is used to capture video footage that has a wider dynamic range and exposure latitude than standard video. The Canon Log tone curve is applied at the point of capture to retain more details in the highlights and shadows compared to standard video.
Which Canon Log is best for low light?
Canon Log 2 is the ideal choice for when maximum detail is required, particularly in low-light scenes to extract shadow information. However, it will also cause elevated noise in those darker regions of the image and therefore require more time in post-production.
Videos
It seems like: I always (not everytime) heard people ranting about "C-LOG 2 is superior than C-LOG 3".
While it can be true, C-LOG 3 record your whole entire camera's DR (Dynamic Range), while C-LOG 2 doesn't increase your camera's DR, but rather lifting your shadow curve, thus making your shadow noisier.
So, with my understanding of C-LOG 2 vs. C-LOG 3 / or equiv., I just hate when people misunderstood that C-LOG 2 "increases" a camera's DR.
———
Did I get this right? Or am I wrong?
—Also—
What the hell happened to CanonRumors?
Just wrapped a long series of doc interviews and scene work, shot on the Mini.
I'm being sent back out in a week to shoot additional b-roll for this film, but budgets have run dry there's only room for a Canon or Sony. So I'm thinking the C300iii or FX9. At this point, we are not considering other brands.
Lenses will be the same, so all else being equal, what's going to be the better match with Log C?
I'm leaning toward the Canon, namely because I came across an Arri lookalike LUT for the C300iii's: https://owl-bot.myshopify.com/products/owlcolor-c300mkiii
Brief story: I'm a chilean film student on my last year, i'm gonna shoot a shortfilm and it's my first time as a cinematographer (w/ another partner that has shot multiple times before). I'm 10 days away from filming, and i need to know if it's better to film on canon's C-log 3 or RAW.
My equipment is a Canon C200 + two 64gb Cfast cards that the uni gives for free.
My short film will have a lenght of about 15 minutes and has 44 shots spread on 3 days of film
Me and my partner are working the supposition that 1 minute of RAW will weight about 7gb, so we'll need a 256gb Cfast in order to not be constantly logging on the shoot, plus a Cfast reader that the uni doesn't have
NOW, the other three important facts are:
-
we record on June 14th-16th and the deadline of the project is on July 5th, meaning we have 21 days to mount the whole thing.
-
I will make the color post on Davinci, but i've never used Davinci before
-
Me and my partner have never shot on RAW before
We want to keep on editing after the deadline, so RAW would be a good idea in order to make make a better post-exam color postproduction, BUT, at the same time, C log-3 sounds way more manageable for everyone involved, seems to get the job done, plus it doesn't require to rent anything.