Is it just me, or are all of the Canon supplied LUTs kind of junk when used with R5 log footage?

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I've gotten into shooting log footage recently. So I downloaded Canon's LUTs, expecting that I could load them onto the footage and get more-or-less normal looking footage, but with more latitude to adjust the highlights and shadows. But no matter which LUT I try, the footage just looks very off compared to footage taken without log turned on. Am I missing something? The colors are washed out, the contrast is still very low. What gives? Am I not understanding how log footage is supposed to work, or are Canon's LUTs just not that good?

For what it's worth, I had the same experience with log footage on the R as well. I feel like I'm either not understanding or not using LUTs properly.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

I've gotten into shooting log footage recently. So I downloaded Canon's LUTs, expecting that I could load them onto the footage and get more-or-less normal looking footage, but with more latitude to adjust the highlights and shadows. But no matter which LUT I try, the footage just looks very off compared to footage taken without log turned on. Am I missing something? The colors are washed out, the contrast is still very low. What gives? Am I not understanding how log footage is supposed to work, or are Canon's LUTs just not that good?

I like the look of dcip3_CanonLog-to-DCIP3 for a starting point.

CanonLog_10-to-BT709_FF_Ver2.0 is another I use

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I like the look of dcip3_CanonLog-to-DCIP3 for a starting point.

CanonLog_10-to-BT709_FF_Ver2.0 is another I use

Which folder is that in? I don't see a file by that name.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

Hmm looks like those are not in the latest package. I got the DCIP3 from package canon-lut-201811

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I don't understand why this has to be so complicated. CLog offsets colors and exposure by a certain amount. Is it that hard to just make a LUT that's the exact inverse of that?

 

[Jonathan Thill]

Yeah I agree, Canon is the master of simplifying menus and functions but clearly an engineer was in charge of LUT's. I do not mean any offence to our Engineer friends but it does take a great deal of skill to take a simple subject and make it complicated

The key I have found is I assume all LUT's that are CanonLog2 or 3 are not for my R5(non RAW) or R then I just experiment until I find a look I like then dial it in.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

The key I have found is I assume all LUT's that are CanonLog2 or 3 are not for my R5(non RAW) or R then I just experiment until I find a look I like then dial it in.

They're not!? I thought the R5 had CanonLog2.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

I think it is just Canon log but I could be wrong.

 

[koenkooi]

They're not!? I thought the R5 had CanonLog2.

It has only Clog, no CLog2 and no CLog3. Canon did say they are going to add CLog3 in the future via firmware updates. No dates mentioned, so it might be 2032.

 

[pmjm]

It's not just you. The Canon luts have been tough for me so far too. Thank you @Ramage for the heads up on those, will give them a try. I'm new to both shooting and grading log but so far it's been a really rough task to get something that looks better than the standard profiles, but when it works the difference in DR is staggering.

The biggest adjustment for me is shooting at ISO 400 and then reducing the output of my lights or using an ND filter. That's going to take some getting used to since I'm used to being able to adjust ISO on the standard profiles. Much better results though. I'm in love with the 4KHQ this camera produces.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

Should be pretty easy to add CLog3. I am having fun playing around with it using the 8K Raw. Took this 8K shot at ISO 5000

Pretty impressed how usable the file is, not perfect and I really only set it to CLog3 and turned down the exposure a little to hide some of the shadow noise.

Not sure why youtube is taking so long to encode the 4K and 8K options.