New G-LOG Ultimate picture Profile.

Erik Wittbusch · August 26th, 2013, 08:27 AM

As Frank is now a BMCC shooter I don't think so...

The BMCC is so much better not only in terms of DR but in terms of a clean signal.

The FS100 makes weird things with the highlights. They get colored easily, what
makes your footage look so videoish. And they break in a very unnatural way.
That's why Franks profile puts the kneepoint down

Franks Profile was or is one of the best profils that tries to adress this.

Please don't mix measured DR and usable DR. Two different things...

Chris Quevedo · August 26th, 2013, 09:08 AM

what do you mean by measured vs usable?

Erik Wittbusch · August 30th, 2013, 10:09 AM

Measured means in a studio environment with charts and vectorscope.

Usuble DR is the DR which you can really use for your footage. The FS100, which I have now, has a tendency to make highlights unusuable through giving them weird colours. The shadows can't be lifted that much in post because of the limited 8bit colours.

I'm preparing a full length feature with the BMCC right now. The BMCC is a whole different story in terms of DR. But in terms of lowlight it can't really compete against the FS100.
And it has the 2,3 crop against the 1,5 crop (S35) sensor size, which means your choice of glass will be limited.

I purchased a set of cinemodded Canon FD primes (24/2 - 35/2 - 50/1,4 - 85/1,8 - 100/2) recently. When Metabones brings out their Speedbooster for Canon FD, I have a great little cinemalike equipment for around 4000$ used. All fast lenses and pure lowlight ability that isn't matched by anything in this pricerange.

The BMCC needs special lenses and can't go higher than 1600ISO, which I try to avoid.

But the FS100 needs that weird profiles and you can never be sure if it works 100%.

Woody Sanford · August 30th, 2013, 12:21 PM

I use G-Log Ultimate a lot, it's probably my go to "Run and Gun" profile if I'm not looking to grade footage. I'll adjust contrast and w/balance on everything but I don't use G-Log for footage to grade. I prefer CPF and the James Miller profiles for that, especially in low light but it depends on the situation as to which I will use.

I've seen colored highlights but it's something that changes with profiles and how you expose for the scene. I don't really have a problem with having colored highlights and I do mask them off and check them on scopes quite a bit. I've found it also comes down to what you are grading with as a tool. Some software do things like clip the highlights and mess them up in post or do funky things with contrast and create a bunch of macro blocking disco affects to highlights.

I guess I fall somewhere between "Measurable" and "Usable" DR and that would be "Practical" DR for me. I'm usually covering up some detail with DOF or a contrasty power window in post to draw attention to the detail I want so as long as it's there and clean I'm good. If I have to zoom in 800% to see a difference I know my audience wont be distracted by it and I've given up on worrying about stuff at that level, it's cut a lot of time off my workflow and time is money.

August 26th, 2013, 08:27 AM	#16
Erik Wittbusch Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Duisburg Posts: 93	Re: New G-LOG Ultimate picture Profile. As Frank is now a BMCC shooter I don't think so... The BMCC is so much better not only in terms of DR but in terms of a clean signal. The FS100 makes weird things with the highlights. They get colored easily, what makes your footage look so videoish. And they break in a very unnatural way. That's why Franks profile puts the kneepoint down Franks Profile was or is one of the best profils that tries to adress this. Please don't mix measured DR and usable DR. Two different things...

August 26th, 2013, 09:08 AM	#17
Chris Quevedo Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Paradise, CA Posts: 158	Re: New G-LOG Ultimate picture Profile. what do you mean by measured vs usable?

August 30th, 2013, 10:09 AM	#18
Erik Wittbusch Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Duisburg Posts: 93	Re: New G-LOG Ultimate picture Profile. Measured means in a studio environment with charts and vectorscope. Usuble DR is the DR which you can really use for your footage. The FS100, which I have now, has a tendency to make highlights unusuable through giving them weird colours. The shadows can't be lifted that much in post because of the limited 8bit colours. I'm preparing a full length feature with the BMCC right now. The BMCC is a whole different story in terms of DR. But in terms of lowlight it can't really compete against the FS100. And it has the 2,3 crop against the 1,5 crop (S35) sensor size, which means your choice of glass will be limited. I purchased a set of cinemodded Canon FD primes (24/2 - 35/2 - 50/1,4 - 85/1,8 - 100/2) recently. When Metabones brings out their Speedbooster for Canon FD, I have a great little cinemalike equipment for around 4000$ used. All fast lenses and pure lowlight ability that isn't matched by anything in this pricerange. The BMCC needs special lenses and can't go higher than 1600ISO, which I try to avoid. But the FS100 needs that weird profiles and you can never be sure if it works 100%.

August 30th, 2013, 12:21 PM	#19
Woody Sanford Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Princeton, NC Posts: 161	Re: New G-LOG Ultimate picture Profile. I use G-Log Ultimate a lot, it's probably my go to "Run and Gun" profile if I'm not looking to grade footage. I'll adjust contrast and w/balance on everything but I don't use G-Log for footage to grade. I prefer CPF and the James Miller profiles for that, especially in low light but it depends on the situation as to which I will use. I've seen colored highlights but it's something that changes with profiles and how you expose for the scene. I don't really have a problem with having colored highlights and I do mask them off and check them on scopes quite a bit. I've found it also comes down to what you are grading with as a tool. Some software do things like clip the highlights and mess them up in post or do funky things with contrast and create a bunch of macro blocking disco affects to highlights. I guess I fall somewhere between "Measurable" and "Usable" DR and that would be "Practical" DR for me. I'm usually covering up some detail with DOF or a contrasty power window in post to draw attention to the detail I want so as long as it's there and clean I'm good. If I have to zoom in 800% to see a difference I know my audience wont be distracted by it and I've given up on worrying about stuff at that level, it's cut a lot of time off my workflow and time is money.