I was wondering what the difference between using CineMatch and shooting in Raw on the R5C and then in post, putting the colour space to CLog2… but then I remembered the file sizes!!! Shooting 4k (or any other resolution) in Clog3 and then using Cinematch to transform it to Clog2 would save a WHOLE BUNCH of disk space 🤩🙌 Thanks!!!
Thank you for taking the time to comment =) this is exactly why I wanted to share it: it's great to be able to get the colourspace without spending all the budget on storage for raw files! Plus if you're using powersaving mode on the R5C you're locked out of shooting raw anyway, so it could come in useful there too. Cheers!
If you want C-Log 2 from your R5C just shoot in RAW, no point in messing around with third party plug ins to get it C-Log 3 to look as flat as 2. CF Express B cards aren't so expensive that you can't have a few and shoot RAW, it looks great to have anyway. It's all about preserving blown out highlights so if the image doesn't have a big DR, C-Log 3 is gonna look good anyway. Just my thoughts and no, I'm not mad at you!
Hey, I appreciate your thoughts =) You're absolutely right - this will never get the same level of DR and colour info as shooting raw, and is definitely a poor substitute for raw. I guess I wanted to share this as an alternative workflow for those that want the improved colourspace CLog2 brings without being forced to store/record the gigantic files. If the scene has a wide DR then I'm still shooting raw, but this brings a quick fix for anything shot in CLog3. You're right too that CLog3 looks good anyway when there isn't a big DR too. Thanks for sharing anyway!
@@NaikMedia All good here, hope you are doing well. it will be great to watch more videos from you, especially on R5c. Still holding on to mine, even after R5ii release. Can’t justify R5ii, especially for video over R5c.
I was thinking about the same thing - don't think that it's worth the trade if video is your main bag. The R5 II has some great video features but nothing that beats then unlimited record times and all 8K over-sampled codecs. Plus the cinema OS is so much better for recording interviews. Even Josh Sattin showed that the R5C has better battery life with the new LP-E6P batteries than the R5 II...
@@NaikMedia I agree. I have bought couple of new those new batteries, very expensive here in UK compared to Canada and America, getting extra 40-45% recordings time so battery issue on R5c has sorted out to some extent.
@@EhtashamAnwar can you keep a secret? CVP have them for way cheaper. I'm going to try two of them in a battery grip to see if I can get decent record times without having to change batteries. Some day its awkward constantly changing batteries in front of clients.
My simple and free hack to get softer highlights, "more dynamic range" and a less crunchy look with Clog3 is to shoot my R6 II in Clog3, then in Resolve when I use a Colour Space Transform, use the Clog1 CST instead of Clog3. You can see it even in the waveforms that you retain about 2/3 of a stop more especially in the highlights. I did this and compared some images to R5 II shots on Clog2 and the results were very similar. Granted there was a bit more shadow noise but other than that the look was quite similar. I suspect the same could be achieved by slapping a Clog1 LUT onto Clog3 footage, but I'm not a LUT type of person.
Thanks for sharing this technique - I'll give it a go with some Clog3 footage sometime and see how it works with the R5C. Have fun with the R6II - brilliant camera!
Hello! i also use R5C,FCPX Cinematch and Filmconvert :). I have to say that: the footage of R5C and in general "CLOG3" footage from any Canon camera,is automatically converted in CLOG2 in FCPX when import it. I mean: when you import a CLOG3 footage already FCP transform it in CLOG2. I don't know why!! Look at in Metadata page of your clips. You don't need to transform again in CLOG2 your stuff.
Ah, I didn’t realise that. I always undo the fcpx auto grade as I like to put my colour wheel corrections before the grade, which I can’t do when fcpx grades it for me. But it’s a good shout!
It works well in terms of creating a gamma curve with less contrast that matches well with R5C raw footage that’s interpreted as clog 2 in resolve. Of course as you mentioned it can only use the DR that’s captured in clog 3 but I was surprised at how well it seems to work regardless.
Clog 2 is soooo much easier to work with than clog 3 Colors look amazing especially in the skin tones I get they didn’t want to add clog 2 to the r5c cause it wouldn’t benefit with its DR but I beg to differ when it comes to post work Wish they would just add it already Shoot 12bit raw now and interpret clog2 in DR
Canon tend to baby their customers a little whereas Sony give theirs all the options even if the footage isn’t great with some of them. I’d rather have the choice to use CLog2 and deal with the noise myself.
Cinematch is just saying that in DaVinci Resolve you can interpret the raw footage as either clog3 or clog2. The Clog2 has more "dynamic range" but it's also rife with noise. Canon has said they they felt the R5C sensor and the generation of R5 from back then just didn't have the same dynamic range to allow for Clog2 Log Curve. I'm curious about your pipeline, when you say you did a "basic" grade of the clog3 footage are you using a technical transform lut after your grade, or are you grading the log footage directly?
Thanks for the comment, but I’m not using resolve or raw footage at all in this video or this workflow: it’s all XF-AVC or HEVC footage transformed from CLog3 into CLog2 using cinematic. So the basic grade is just colour wheel adjustments.
@@NaikMedia thanks. I was trying to answer your question about cinematch’s response to your question about their clog2 R5C workflow. They were explaining how in DaVinci you can change the log curve of the raw footage through the extra raw settings you get in DaVinci. I know you are not using Resolve :). But I was also curious if you used a transform lut in your basic grade of the XFavc footage. Personally I would never grade log footage from scratch, it’s too much guess work and no colourists do this. They all use a transform lut and grade underneath the lut transform (like you have shown in other videos). So I just wanted to clarify. It’s also why I don’t understand the comment that working with raw is “hard”, if you use the transform luts correctly they behave the same as XFAVC in the pipeline but just give you more room to push colours around because it’s 12 bit. It’s really the same procedure as long as you use technical luts.
@@avdpost Ah, thanks! =) I appreciate that. It makes sense. I think when I say raw is 'hard' it's more about the whole workflow. I always record raw as a backup file, and when I use it the storage and fiddliness (particularly in FCPX - it's not great for correcting raw footage). It's an excuse for laziness in the end - the XF-AVC files just look better quicker. I'll try what you said using the technical LUT as a starting point next time though. Thanks for taking the time to write such a helpful and thoughtful comment though, I really do appreciate it!
@@NaikMedia Hey anytime! Totally agree there is definitely more caveats and friction getting doing a raw workflow. FCPX not withstanding. To me the biggest difference is XFAVC files have noise reduction added and it really takes the edge off raw codecs. I think I commented on your other video about grading process where you place the transform lut from Canon below your colour grading and that process is great, efficient and in all honesty what everyone does. As, in general, log isn't meant to be worked on with some kind of transform.
Click-Bait. Cinematch has been around for a long while now. No it isn't the same, no it isn't close, no it isn't like C-LOG 2, different dynamic range being recorded, so different linear response, different hue-saturations response, different everything. The problem is you still have to deal with the crappy C-LOG 3 footage on the front end. Try passing this off as "C-LOG 2" to a colorist or color house, with your client standing there.
All of this is acknowledged in the video. I never claimed it to be new, but it’s still useful for people with R5C and other R cameras who do their own colour grading. If you watch the test using the official Canon LUTs you’ll see that the colour space is a match for CLog2 using this conversion.
a canon creator who also uses FCPX? we just became best friends.
You have good taste, sir!
@@NaikMedia subscribed and notifications on! you on instagram?
Thank you very much! Not on any other social media just YT :)
I was wondering what the difference between using CineMatch and shooting in Raw on the R5C and then in post, putting the colour space to CLog2… but then I remembered the file sizes!!!
Shooting 4k (or any other resolution) in Clog3 and then using Cinematch to transform it to Clog2 would save a WHOLE BUNCH of disk space 🤩🙌
Thanks!!!
Thank you for taking the time to comment =) this is exactly why I wanted to share it: it's great to be able to get the colourspace without spending all the budget on storage for raw files! Plus if you're using powersaving mode on the R5C you're locked out of shooting raw anyway, so it could come in useful there too. Cheers!
Just today was working with some Raw footage from my R5C, good stuff.
The raw image is incredible from this camera. Just wish I was better at using it! Enjoy :)
If you want C-Log 2 from your R5C just shoot in RAW, no point in messing around with third party plug ins to get it C-Log 3 to look as flat as 2. CF Express B cards aren't so expensive that you can't have a few and shoot RAW, it looks great to have anyway. It's all about preserving blown out highlights so if the image doesn't have a big DR, C-Log 3 is gonna look good anyway. Just my thoughts and no, I'm not mad at you!
Hey, I appreciate your thoughts =) You're absolutely right - this will never get the same level of DR and colour info as shooting raw, and is definitely a poor substitute for raw.
I guess I wanted to share this as an alternative workflow for those that want the improved colourspace CLog2 brings without being forced to store/record the gigantic files. If the scene has a wide DR then I'm still shooting raw, but this brings a quick fix for anything shot in CLog3. You're right too that CLog3 looks good anyway when there isn't a big DR too.
Thanks for sharing anyway!
Good to hear from you again!
Thanks mate =) I've been trying to get the time to make more videos - hopefully more coming soon. Hope you're keeping well!
@@NaikMedia All good here, hope you are doing well. it will be great to watch more videos from you, especially on R5c. Still holding on to mine, even after R5ii release. Can’t justify R5ii, especially for video over R5c.
I was thinking about the same thing - don't think that it's worth the trade if video is your main bag. The R5 II has some great video features but nothing that beats then unlimited record times and all 8K over-sampled codecs. Plus the cinema OS is so much better for recording interviews.
Even Josh Sattin showed that the R5C has better battery life with the new LP-E6P batteries than the R5 II...
@@NaikMedia I agree. I have bought couple of new those new batteries, very expensive here in UK compared to Canada and America, getting extra 40-45% recordings time so battery issue on R5c has sorted out to some extent.
@@EhtashamAnwar can you keep a secret? CVP have them for way cheaper.
I'm going to try two of them in a battery grip to see if I can get decent record times without having to change batteries. Some day its awkward constantly changing batteries in front of clients.
My simple and free hack to get softer highlights, "more dynamic range" and a less crunchy look with Clog3 is to shoot my R6 II in Clog3, then in Resolve when I use a Colour Space Transform, use the Clog1 CST instead of Clog3. You can see it even in the waveforms that you retain about 2/3 of a stop more especially in the highlights. I did this and compared some images to R5 II shots on Clog2 and the results were very similar. Granted there was a bit more shadow noise but other than that the look was quite similar. I suspect the same could be achieved by slapping a Clog1 LUT onto Clog3 footage, but I'm not a LUT type of person.
Thanks for sharing this technique - I'll give it a go with some Clog3 footage sometime and see how it works with the R5C. Have fun with the R6II - brilliant camera!
Hello! i also use R5C,FCPX Cinematch and Filmconvert :). I have to say that: the footage of R5C and in general "CLOG3" footage from any Canon camera,is automatically converted in CLOG2 in FCPX when import it. I mean: when you import a CLOG3 footage already FCP transform it in CLOG2. I don't know why!! Look at in Metadata page of your clips. You don't need to transform again in CLOG2 your stuff.
Ah, I didn’t realise that. I always undo the fcpx auto grade as I like to put my colour wheel corrections before the grade, which I can’t do when fcpx grades it for me. But it’s a good shout!
Can do this in Resolve using Color Space Transfer without paying the extra cost for a plugin.
Thanks for the info! How well do you find it works?
It works well in terms of creating a gamma curve with less contrast that matches well with R5C raw footage that’s interpreted as clog 2 in resolve. Of course as you mentioned it can only use the DR that’s captured in clog 3 but I was surprised at how well it seems to work regardless.
Clog 2 is soooo much easier to work with than clog 3
Colors look amazing especially in the skin tones
I get they didn’t want to add clog 2 to the r5c cause it wouldn’t benefit with its DR but I beg to differ when it comes to post work
Wish they would just add it already
Shoot 12bit raw now and interpret clog2 in DR
Canon tend to baby their customers a little whereas Sony give theirs all the options even if the footage isn’t great with some of them.
I’d rather have the choice to use CLog2 and deal with the noise myself.
Cinematch is just saying that in DaVinci Resolve you can interpret the raw footage as either clog3 or clog2. The Clog2 has more "dynamic range" but it's also rife with noise. Canon has said they they felt the R5C sensor and the generation of R5 from back then just didn't have the same dynamic range to allow for Clog2 Log Curve.
I'm curious about your pipeline, when you say you did a "basic" grade of the clog3 footage are you using a technical transform lut after your grade, or are you grading the log footage directly?
Thanks for the comment, but I’m not using resolve or raw footage at all in this video or this workflow: it’s all XF-AVC or HEVC footage transformed from CLog3 into CLog2 using cinematic. So the basic grade is just colour wheel adjustments.
@@NaikMedia thanks. I was trying to answer your question about cinematch’s response to your question about their clog2 R5C workflow. They were explaining how in DaVinci you can change the log curve of the raw footage through the extra raw settings you get in DaVinci. I know you are not using Resolve :).
But I was also curious if you used a transform lut in your basic grade of the XFavc footage. Personally I would never grade log footage from scratch, it’s too much guess work and no colourists do this. They all use a transform lut and grade underneath the lut transform (like you have shown in other videos). So I just wanted to clarify.
It’s also why I don’t understand the comment that working with raw is “hard”, if you use the transform luts correctly they behave the same as XFAVC in the pipeline but just give you more room to push colours around because it’s 12 bit. It’s really the same procedure as long as you use technical luts.
@@avdpost Ah, thanks! =) I appreciate that. It makes sense. I think when I say raw is 'hard' it's more about the whole workflow. I always record raw as a backup file, and when I use it the storage and fiddliness (particularly in FCPX - it's not great for correcting raw footage). It's an excuse for laziness in the end - the XF-AVC files just look better quicker. I'll try what you said using the technical LUT as a starting point next time though. Thanks for taking the time to write such a helpful and thoughtful comment though, I really do appreciate it!
@@NaikMedia Hey anytime! Totally agree there is definitely more caveats and friction getting doing a raw workflow. FCPX not withstanding. To me the biggest difference is XFAVC files have noise reduction added and it really takes the edge off raw codecs.
I think I commented on your other video about grading process where you place the transform lut from Canon below your colour grading and that process is great, efficient and in all honesty what everyone does. As, in general, log isn't meant to be worked on with some kind of transform.
Click-Bait. Cinematch has been around for a long while now. No it isn't the same, no it isn't close, no it isn't like C-LOG 2, different dynamic range being recorded, so different linear response, different hue-saturations response, different everything. The problem is you still have to deal with the crappy C-LOG 3 footage on the front end. Try passing this off as "C-LOG 2" to a colorist or color house, with your client standing there.
All of this is acknowledged in the video.
I never claimed it to be new, but it’s still useful for people with R5C and other R cameras who do their own colour grading.
If you watch the test using the official Canon LUTs you’ll see that the colour space is a match for CLog2 using this conversion.