Connect with us

Camera

If you shoot Log on the Canon EOS R5, you should shoot C-Log3. Here’s why.

Published

on

If you shoot Log on the Canon EOS R5, you should shoot C-Log3. Here’s why.
From somewhat inauspicious beginnings, firmware updates are turning the EOS R5 into an increasingly capable video camera

With its latest firmware, the Canon EOS R5 gains the Canon Log 3 profile for video. In this article, we’re taking a closer look at C-Log3 and how it differs from the existing C-Log profile. In doing so, we hope to make clear why cameras sometimes offer multiple Log profiles, to help you decide which one to use.

Why Log?

To understand why cameras have different Log profiles, it’s worth going back to basics to explain why videographers shoot Log at all.

In stills photography we generally choose between JPEG files (a small and efficient compressed format but one that has limited editing flexibility), and Raw files (larger but retaining the greatest flexibility). Log is an attempt at a middle ground between these two: it’s subject to a lot of the processing and compression that a JPEG file is, but has been expressly designed to retain enough information about the original capture to remain flexible. Crucially, it tends to be relatively small, which is valuable in video: when you’re measuring file sizes in data per second, then the clock is ticking from the moment you hit the [REC] button.

The simplest way to think of Log files is like JPEGs but with tone curves designed to share their data values out more equally between the number of stops you captured. Colors are also desaturated, to reduce the risk of saturated parts of the scene clipping and hence losing flexibility when color grading.

Why are there different versions of Log?

In the previous section I wrote that Log curves are designed to retain similar amounts of information about every stop of light you captured. This isn’t quite correct. More precisely, Log curves are designed to encode a pre-determined number of stops of light. And there are a number of reasons why more is not always better.

Firstly, there’s simply no point using a Log curve that encodes 15 stops of light if you sensor can only capture 12 before the signal becomes indistinguishable from noise. For a start, it would mean that the bottom three stops of your file would be a noisy mess, but it would also encourage you to use an inappropriate exposure.

C-Log is designed to accommodate around 11 stops of DR. In order to capture around 2EV more highlights than a standard JPEG, it’s supposed to be exposed as ISO 400 (rather than the ISO 100 that’s the base setting for the Standard color mode). Canon Log 3’s base ISO setting is rated as 800, to capture an additional stop.

If we assume the Log curve is designed to incorporate another two stops of highlights over what a standard sRGB JPEG would include, you’d need to reduce exposure by two stops to capture this additional highlight information. A two-stop reduction in exposure means a two-stop increase in noise in all those tones that overlap with the standard color mode.

The final consideration is data availability. Your camera can only record a certain number of brightness values. If you try to share those values roughly equally between 11 stops of light, you retain more information about each one than if you try to squeeze 15 stops into the file. This is less of a problem on higher-end cameras that shoot 10-bit footage (and so have 1024 values to share), but is worth considering if your camera only captures 8-bit Log, and hence has only 256 values available.

This should start to explain why there are multiple Log options: you want to find a Log curve that’s well suited both to the capabilities of your camera and to the scene you’re shooting.

C-Log vs C-Log3

We took a closer look at the Canon Log and Canon Log 3 curves and what difference they make. The first thing you may notice upon engaging C-Log3 is that the base ISO rating jumps to 800: one stop higher than the existing C-Log mode. We’ve checked, and there’s no change in amplification: that one stop change in ISO rating is solely an instruction to give the camera one stop less exposure, to capture more highlights.

Mode Base ISO rating Difference from sRGB*
Standard (sRGB) 100 0
Canon Log 400 +2EV
Canon Log 3 800 +3EV

Here are the waveforms of C-Log and C-Log3, exposed with this change in ISO rating taken into account. As theory leads us to expect, this results in an extra stop of highlight capture but with a noise increase (the waveforms of each step becoming taller/fuzzier), for the rest of the tones.

Of course you don’t have to expose this way, if you’d prefer not to. The inherent flexibility of Log means you could expose C-Log3 as if it were C-Log, clip highlights at the same point and gain your extra stop in the shadows, instead.

But the difference between the two profiles isn’t just a question of C-Log3 being slightly flatter, to incorporate an extra stop of DR. Look closely at the noise floor, represented by the thick white band at the bottom of the waveform. At first glance, this appears taller (noisier) for C-Log3. But this shouldn’t be the case, since we gave identical exposure to both modes.

Look closer and you’ll see that the noise in C-Log3 mode extends the same distance above and below the 128 marker line, which is what you’d expect: noise is variation above and below the ‘true’ value. But in C-Log mode, it extends upwards by the same amount as C-Log3, but cuts off cleanly just below a value of 128. Canon is using a very high black clipping level to make the darkest tones appear less noisy.

The impact of this can sometimes reveal itself when you try to grade the footage: C-Log will sometimes plug-up blacks, which look unnatural if they’re brightened during color grading. C-Log3 doesn’t clip its blacks so aggressively, so there’s less risk of the darker tones looking strange when lifted.

It’s also worth noting that C-Log3 gives you a choice of Cine or Rec 709 color response (rather than the EOS or Neutral options for Canon Log), making it compatible with the LUTs Canon has created for its Cinema EOS cameras, and giving a more interesting starting point.

So C-Log3’s greater processing flexibility comes from more than just the additional stop its tone curve is designed to provide. However, given how noisy the shadows get, it should be pretty clear that it’s already pushing at the limits of what the EOS R5 is able to capture.

This makes sense: the R5 creates its video from a 12-bit sensor readout. And, although the process of downscaling from 8K to 4K will boost the number a bit, it’s never going to significantly exceed 12 stops of DR capture. As such, the C-Log3 curve seems a pretty good match for the camera, and it’s unlikely that Canon will add the even wider DR C-Log2 profile.

When should I use it?

Canon Log 3 offers a little more dynamic range than Canon Log, but it’s also less prone to clogged-up shadows and is more readily compatible with the LUTs designed for Canon’s Cinema EOS cameras. Both of these factors make it more useable than the existing C-Log profile.

If you’re worried about the additional noise and don’t need the additional stop of dynamic range, there’s no reason you can’t overexpose C-Log3 by a stop and pretend you’re still shooting with a slightly more sophisticated version of C-Log. The wider DR captured does seem to slightly increase the risk of posterization, though.

Of course this doesn’t mean it suddenly makes sense to shoot Log all the time: the reduced, highlight capturing exposures mean it may not be ideal in low light, and it may be unnecessary or ill-suited to low contrast or controlled lighting shoots. But when it makes sense to shoot log on the R5, we think it makes sense to choose C-Log3.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Camera

Pentax K-1 and K-1 II firmware updates include astrophotography features (depending on where you live)

Published

on

By

Pentax K-1 and K-1 II firmware updates include astrophotography features (depending on where you live)


When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

Yesterday, Ricoh quietly released firmware 2.50 for its Pentax K-1 and K-1 II DSLRs. However, the features you can expect to gain from this update may depend on your geography.

Ricoh’s English-language firmware pages for the K-1 and K-1 II state that firmware 2.50 delivers “Improved stability for general performance.”

However, astute Pentax users noted that Ricoh’s Japanese-language firmware pages (translation) indicate that the update also includes a limited feature called “Astronomical Photo Assist,” a collection of three new features designed for astrophotography: Star AF, remote control focus fine adjustment, and astronomical image processing.

Star AF is intended to automate focusing on stars when using autofocus lenses. Rather than manually focusing on a bright star and changing your composition, it promises to let you compose your shot and let the camera focus.

Remote control fine adjustment allows users to adjust focus without touching the lens and requires Pentax’s optional O-RC1 remote. Astronomical image processing will enable users to make in-camera adjustments to astrophotography images, including shading correction, fogging correction, background darkness, star brightness, celestial clarity, and fringe correction.

Astronomical image processing on the K-1 and K-1 II will enable users to make in-camera adjustments to astrophotography images, including shading correction, fogging correction, background darkness, star brightness, celestial clarity, and fringe correction.

According to Ricoh, Astronomical Photo Assist is a premium feature that must be purchased and costs ¥11,000 for an activation key (about $70 at current exchange rates).

Although these astrophotography features appear to be Japan-only for now, a Ricoh representative tells us, “Ricoh Imaging Americas confirmed that the premium firmware features for the PENTAX K-1 and PENTAX K-1 Mark II will eventually be available to US customers.”

Firmware update 2.50 for both the K-1 and K-1 II is available for download from Ricoh’s website.



Source link

Continue Reading

Camera

On this day 2017: Nikon launches D850

Published

on

By

On this day 2017: Nikon launches D850


When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.

As part of our twenty fifth anniversary, we’re looking back at some of the most significant cameras launched and reviewed during that period. Today’s pick was launched seven years ago today* and yet we’re only quite recently stepping out of its shadow.

The Nikon D850 is likely to be remembered as the high watermark of DSLR technology. We may yet still see impressive developments from Ricoh in the future (we’d love to see a significantly upgraded Pentax K-1 III), but the D850 was perhaps the green flash as the sun set on the DSLR as the dominant technology in the market.

Click here to read our Nikon D850 review

Why do we think it was such a big deal? Because it got just about everything right. Its 45MP sensor brought dual conversion gain to high pixel count sensors, meaning excellent dynamic range at base ISO and lower noise at high ISOs. Its autofocus system was one of the best we’ve ever seen on a DSLR: easy to use and highly dependable, with a good level of coverage. And then there was a body and user interface honed by years of iterative refinement, that made it easy to get the most out of the camera.

None of this is meant as a slight towards the other late-period DSLRs but the likes of Canon’s EOS 5DS and 5DSR didn’t present quite such a complete package of AF tracking, daylight DR and low-light quality as the Nikon did. With its ability to shoot at up to 9fps (if you used the optional battery grip), the D850 started to chip away at the idea that high megapixel cameras were specialized landscape and studio tools that would struggle with movement or less-than-perfect lighting. And that’s without even considering its 4K video capabilities.

In the seven years since the D850 was launched, mirrorless cameras have eclipsed most areas in which DSLRs once held the advantage. For example, the Z8 can shoot faster, autofocus more with more accuracy and precision, across a wider area of the frame and do so while shooting at much faster rates.

But, even though it outshines the D850 in most regards, the Z8 is still based around what we believe is a (significant) evolution of the same sensor, and its reputation still looms large enough for Nikon to explicitly market the Z8 as its “true successor.”

Nikon D850 sample gallery

Sample gallery
This widget is not optimized for RSS feed readers. Click here to open it in a new browser window / tab.

*Actually seven years ago yesterday: we had to delay this article for a day to focus on the publishing the Z6III studio scene: the latest cameras taking precedence over our anniversary content.



Source link

Continue Reading

Camera

Nikon Z6III added to studio scene, making image quality clear

Published

on

By

Nikon Z6III added to studio scene, making image quality clear


When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
Photo: Richard Butler

We’ve just received a production Nikon Z6III and took it into our studio immediately to get a sense for how the sensor really performs.

Dynamic range tests have already been conducted, but these only give a limited insight into the image quality as a whole. As expected, our Exposure Latitude test – which mimics the effect of reducing exposure to capture a bright sunrise or sunset, then making use of the deep shadows – shows a difference if you use the very deepest shadows, just as the numerical DR tests imply.

Likewise, our ISO Invariance test shows there’s more of a benefit to be had from applying more amplification by raising the ISO setting to overcome the read noise, than there was in the Z6 II. This means there’s a bigger improvement when you move up to the higher gain step of the dual conversion gain sensor but, as with the Z6 II, little more to be gained beyond that.

These are pushing at the extreme of the sensor’s performance though. For most everyday photography, you don’t use the deepest shadows of the Raw files, so differences in read noise between sensors don’t play much of a role. In most of the tones of an image, sensor size plays a huge role, along with any (pretty rare) differences in light capturing efficiency.

Image Comparison
This widget is not optimized for RSS feed readers. Click here to open it in a new browser window / tab.

As expected, the standard exposures look identical to those of the Z6 II. There are similar (or better) levels of detail at low ISO, in both JPEG and Raw. At higher ISO, the Z6III still looks essentially the same as the Z6II. Its fractionally higher level of read noise finally comes back to have an impact at very, very high ISO settings.

Overall, then, there is a read noise price to be paid for the camera’s faster sensor, in a way that slightly blunts the ultimate flexibility of the Raw files at low ISO and that results in fractionally more noise at ultra-high ISOs. But we suspect most people will more than happily pay this small price in return for a big boost in performance.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending