- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
Contrast and saturation can be kept a 0. For an 8 bit sensor, you're best to not do any adjustment than you absolutely have to. Sharpening depends critically on the ouput - you sharpen differently if you are going for an iPhone video vs a 4K Vimeo movie. That's a huge problem in web video since clients typically don't do what you tell them to.I would go -1,0,0 if any since these cameras over sharpen
And you can add sharpening, but never remove it (unlike contrast and saturation). -1 seems to be about right in terms of ability to look at the image and judge it before post. I would never go above zero if you are going to do any post processing.
If you just plan on dumping the video to YouTube, go ahead and add all three values to taste. And for bog's sake, delete some things. Please.
I still think YouTube should enforce a rule that any video have at least three deletes from the original file. Really, people don't want to see the grass you took off from.
/end rant
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 418
- Age
- 50
I'm starting to really like you.
I can see you've been around for a while and much longer than me but there have been a couple item here where having some more outspoken people that know what they are saying when it comes to photography and hopefully video is nice.
Why would anyone want to use "None" instead of D-Log??? I know there was that person that made a long case for the reasons that rec709 (none) is better than D-Log.
Let me explain to you in a easy nugget what D-Log is if you don't understand.
First, as most of you know, it is supposed to give you the best latitude, range, or headroom for grading your video.
I'm going to use a quote from "Colour in Cambridge" to define gamma which is what D-Log is all about.
Essentially, for the uninitiated, gamma is a numerical value assigned to the pixels to definite brightness,
Because gamma is the third letter of the green alphabet (using a value of 1-3), and all points between it so it's not 1-2-3 but every ratio between them.
Essentially it really just defines luminosity (or brightness) BUT it does it, for example in an RGB color setting for each color on each pixel. If you don't have control of the value of your pixels, you lose A LOT of control over what you can do in color correction.
So if you REMOVE (or in essence never record) the gamma metadata that D-Log does create, you don't have as much control for a grade that appears exactly as YOU want it to rather than jut fiddling to try and make it look good.
Mind you, I know that a lot of it is fiddling anyway, but you fiddle has a longer neck, if I may stretch the analogy if you shoot in None vs. D-Log.
First, D-Log looks crappy before correcting, but it should only be in the color, not the video. When you are in a gray looking video that you get sent back through lightbridge and plus most of you have turned the video transmission down to 4mbps, it's going to look bad on the screen, but if when you bring it home it look bad on your screen, you need to figure out why.
You shouldn't have to settle on none vs. d-log or cinema. If you use none, you still get gamma control when color correcting but it doesn't record all of your gamma levels flat like D-Log does so you get what is essentially a harder to grade image because your gamma levels begin all over the place. That's the whole purpose of D-Log is so you have a flat gamma level throughout and the metadata is recorded.
Not making use of this is for people that don't want to take the time to figure it out and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that but if you want complete control, you need to shoot in D-Log or Cinema, not none.
Dang, I was going to make this just a couple sentences. I have a problem,
You guys know I preach, everyone to their own art but again, this is one of those things where I think its not a matter of opinion.
Sum it up with this sentence: There is no color look that you CAN'T get using D-Log as opposed to NONE. However, there are many many looks you won't be able to achieve using NONE as opposed to D-Log or Cinema.
Again, to each their own and if you can get what you need for what you want using REC709, go for it.
Happy flying and shooting!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
Thanks. This is the same stuff we went through in digital photography at the turn of the century. The transition from 8 bit JPEG to RAW took a lot of time and head scratching. Video is really just digital photography with the shutter mashed down .... Well, at least in terms of post processing.
It would be nice if DJI could repeat that transition but at the price point of the Phantoms I'm neither surprised nor unhappy. I've looked at the Inspire X5R but, as I've pointed out, the way DJI rigged that costs more than I think you will get out of it. I'm hoping the P5 hits the right marks - could well do it if they are planning on releasing one in another two years or so.
And then there is the Inspire 2. Maybe.
It would be nice if DJI could repeat that transition but at the price point of the Phantoms I'm neither surprised nor unhappy. I've looked at the Inspire X5R but, as I've pointed out, the way DJI rigged that costs more than I think you will get out of it. I'm hoping the P5 hits the right marks - could well do it if they are planning on releasing one in another two years or so.
And then there is the Inspire 2. Maybe.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 418
- Age
- 50
What don't you like about the X5R?
I thought it was shooting in Lossless JPEG which I would have been unhappy about but it actually records at Adobe DNG RAW (which is better than what I was hoping for), I was hoping for straight uncompressed and as I said, it doesn't matter if it's 8 or 10 bit for purposes of flying machines.
I think the X5R makes the Inspire actually professional.
well.."none" is not longer there...it seems they changed it to DJICOLOR instead...I just learned
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,626
- Reaction score
- 418
- Age
- 50
Very interesting.
I wonder if its a rose by any other name or if TrueColor is somehow treated differently than "none".
I am wondering if maybe they made their own algorithm that controls gamma a little but is not D-Log because they can't fix the issue a lot are having with D-Log.
Hi Guys, this is a very interesting and informative thread ! Are there anymore views/info on the TrueColor and Art settings ? Definitely the last time I tried D-Log it was just unusable, total mush in the lower mid-tones like the op illustrated.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2
- Age
- 69
FYI,
I am a new "pilot", old "Transperancy" then "digital" still photographer, who prefers to capture and present it as it was; which means, I don't "Ansel Adams" the image to make it "artistic". Having been schooled in taking slide film before the onset of digital, I learnt the importance of getting as much correct as possible before taking the photo, which meant photoshoping input was relatively minimal when digital arrived.
But to achieve that you have to learn how the camera and the film "thinks". To that end I evolved into colour profiling my film, Fuji Velvia and Provia, my camera's, Canon A2, 3, 5DM's I, II, III and lately the Olympus EM1, so I could have a consistent starting point for achieving my objective, these days using the XRite Color Checker.
So in attempting to teach myself videography, and after much confusion with Adobe Prem Pro and Davinci Resolve, the fog started to lift; and, I too couldn't figure out why my images were looking mushy in the foiliage and not very good overall when using the video equivalent of camera raw - DLOG from a Phantom 4 camera.
I tried a few low cost LUT's and many of them were of no help.
Then I noticed a couple of downloads on the DJI website. DJI Phantom 4 – Specs, FAQ, Tutorials and Downloads. .... with the word LUTS in them. After a bit of poking in the dark I realised they can be applied in Davinci Resolve, but not in Adobe Premier Pro. So I posted my problem on the DJI forum and one generous person linked me to who show you how if you use "notepad" to add # in a couple of places in the LUT code the LUT's will then work in Prem Pro.
And as I was helped I thought I should help you. Because I couldn't understand why DLog was not doing what it should and giving "S...y" output in certain circumstances, which is what led me here. Now I do understand.
The DJI Luts are easily the best I have used, much of the image issues, discussed above go away with these LUTs. I am still figuring them out, though, as there are two DLog to SRGB luts and one rec 709 Lut, which I am yet to try out (because I have been using DLog). The mussy greens pretty much disappear, the image is sharper, the colours are still subdued, but workable, and good tonal balance. I was using the recommended DLog, -2-2-2 settings recommended by Dlog users online. My interest in photography and now aerial videography and photography stems from an interest in sharing what I find in the wilderness, so getting the foliage right is important, something I have been doing for a quarter of a century, building my first website in 1998.
So now I have a consistent starting point, using a camera profile supplied by DJI, to work with.
Having learnt what I have here, the question to answer for me is, "do you really need to use DLog, due to the limitations of the 8 bit camera DJI uses?" The advantage in DLog is that you have more play with the "F Stops"/Dynamic Range and you can attach different "looks" to them.
Is it necessary, though? Who is going to be your audience? Other net users, using uncalibrated monitors, (I calibrate monthly and know colours vary dramatically from monitor to monitor, especially on PC monitors), displaying the sRGB colour space? If so, does it really matter, then if your aerial video has the whites washed out a bit because the image has a stop or so less dynamic range, as the colours look OK in the RGB colour space, but not "arty", because you used the rec 709 recording profile?
Is using Dlog and then fart arsing around in Davinci or Prem Pro, using the DJI Luts as a starting point to then "photoshop" the video, to give a result that is not too far from using rec 709 or even DJI Color, worth the effort? I don't know yet, but I suspect from the examples earlier in the thread it is not worth it.
In other words, do I want spend more time using DLog to achieve a not too dissimilar output using rec 709 or DJI Color? I hope my notso wise words helps others. I am still "out to lunch" on the best way. Hopefully I will be out of my "nappies" soon.
As my objective is not to create art but share it as it was, I am leaning towards the simplest solution. (Which is also why the GoPro Karma looks appealing because, as I am also learning how to use a Hero 4 Black, I am amazed how powerful this little camera is, and when set to Medium view, how cinematic it looks. Using the GoPro was got me into buying the Phantom 4. The Phantom 4 when linked to the Litchi or Autoflight Apps beats the Karma, hands down, in allowing a single uset to achieve a superior cinematic experience on proven drone, because of the sophisticated flight and camera options that can be pre-programmed by these apps, compared to the fewer options of the Karma that also requires line of sight flying, (currently), but it also requires a lot of practice to learn these apps. The Phantom's weakness, compared to the Karma, will be the quality of the output of images. But I don't think GoPro will seek to emulate the flight options of Autoflight or Litchi because they take a bit of learning and investment in resources.)
I am a new "pilot", old "Transperancy" then "digital" still photographer, who prefers to capture and present it as it was; which means, I don't "Ansel Adams" the image to make it "artistic". Having been schooled in taking slide film before the onset of digital, I learnt the importance of getting as much correct as possible before taking the photo, which meant photoshoping input was relatively minimal when digital arrived.
But to achieve that you have to learn how the camera and the film "thinks". To that end I evolved into colour profiling my film, Fuji Velvia and Provia, my camera's, Canon A2, 3, 5DM's I, II, III and lately the Olympus EM1, so I could have a consistent starting point for achieving my objective, these days using the XRite Color Checker.
So in attempting to teach myself videography, and after much confusion with Adobe Prem Pro and Davinci Resolve, the fog started to lift; and, I too couldn't figure out why my images were looking mushy in the foiliage and not very good overall when using the video equivalent of camera raw - DLOG from a Phantom 4 camera.
I tried a few low cost LUT's and many of them were of no help.
Then I noticed a couple of downloads on the DJI website. DJI Phantom 4 – Specs, FAQ, Tutorials and Downloads. .... with the word LUTS in them. After a bit of poking in the dark I realised they can be applied in Davinci Resolve, but not in Adobe Premier Pro. So I posted my problem on the DJI forum and one generous person linked me to who show you how if you use "notepad" to add # in a couple of places in the LUT code the LUT's will then work in Prem Pro.
And as I was helped I thought I should help you. Because I couldn't understand why DLog was not doing what it should and giving "S...y" output in certain circumstances, which is what led me here. Now I do understand.
The DJI Luts are easily the best I have used, much of the image issues, discussed above go away with these LUTs. I am still figuring them out, though, as there are two DLog to SRGB luts and one rec 709 Lut, which I am yet to try out (because I have been using DLog). The mussy greens pretty much disappear, the image is sharper, the colours are still subdued, but workable, and good tonal balance. I was using the recommended DLog, -2-2-2 settings recommended by Dlog users online. My interest in photography and now aerial videography and photography stems from an interest in sharing what I find in the wilderness, so getting the foliage right is important, something I have been doing for a quarter of a century, building my first website in 1998.
So now I have a consistent starting point, using a camera profile supplied by DJI, to work with.
Having learnt what I have here, the question to answer for me is, "do you really need to use DLog, due to the limitations of the 8 bit camera DJI uses?" The advantage in DLog is that you have more play with the "F Stops"/Dynamic Range and you can attach different "looks" to them.
Is it necessary, though? Who is going to be your audience? Other net users, using uncalibrated monitors, (I calibrate monthly and know colours vary dramatically from monitor to monitor, especially on PC monitors), displaying the sRGB colour space? If so, does it really matter, then if your aerial video has the whites washed out a bit because the image has a stop or so less dynamic range, as the colours look OK in the RGB colour space, but not "arty", because you used the rec 709 recording profile?
Is using Dlog and then fart arsing around in Davinci or Prem Pro, using the DJI Luts as a starting point to then "photoshop" the video, to give a result that is not too far from using rec 709 or even DJI Color, worth the effort? I don't know yet, but I suspect from the examples earlier in the thread it is not worth it.
In other words, do I want spend more time using DLog to achieve a not too dissimilar output using rec 709 or DJI Color? I hope my notso wise words helps others. I am still "out to lunch" on the best way. Hopefully I will be out of my "nappies" soon.
As my objective is not to create art but share it as it was, I am leaning towards the simplest solution. (Which is also why the GoPro Karma looks appealing because, as I am also learning how to use a Hero 4 Black, I am amazed how powerful this little camera is, and when set to Medium view, how cinematic it looks. Using the GoPro was got me into buying the Phantom 4. The Phantom 4 when linked to the Litchi or Autoflight Apps beats the Karma, hands down, in allowing a single uset to achieve a superior cinematic experience on proven drone, because of the sophisticated flight and camera options that can be pre-programmed by these apps, compared to the fewer options of the Karma that also requires line of sight flying, (currently), but it also requires a lot of practice to learn these apps. The Phantom's weakness, compared to the Karma, will be the quality of the output of images. But I don't think GoPro will seek to emulate the flight options of Autoflight or Litchi because they take a bit of learning and investment in resources.)
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2015
- Messages
- 1,617
- Reaction score
- 747
- Age
- 71
I don't use prebuilt LUTs. Never found one that I really liked. I shoot with no correction, try to get the input image as flat as possible and try to avoid big swings in exposure (right...). Then look at the resulting image, think about what you are trying to achieve and try to map out a strategy that gets you there with the fewest steps. This tries to avoid correcting corrections with the subsequent image degradation.
The big issue with the teeny-weeny-8-bit sensor and codec that we have to work with is that it is teeny-weeny and 8 bit. You have precious little room to correct for any mistakes or change in artistic viewpoint because the sensor just doesn't capture much information and too much manipulation just makes a muddy mess.
The real key to decent video imagery in the Phantom is to nail the exposure and shutter speed. Of course, that's not all that easy in a camera that can be over 1000 feet from you, has no aperture control and falls apart much after ISO 200.
So far the best aid to Phantom video has been extra batteries.
But LUTs seem to be most useful if you are trying to recreate a particular 'look'. As a general optimization feature, not so much.
The big issue with the teeny-weeny-8-bit sensor and codec that we have to work with is that it is teeny-weeny and 8 bit. You have precious little room to correct for any mistakes or change in artistic viewpoint because the sensor just doesn't capture much information and too much manipulation just makes a muddy mess.
The real key to decent video imagery in the Phantom is to nail the exposure and shutter speed. Of course, that's not all that easy in a camera that can be over 1000 feet from you, has no aperture control and falls apart much after ISO 200.
So far the best aid to Phantom video has been extra batteries.
But LUTs seem to be most useful if you are trying to recreate a particular 'look'. As a general optimization feature, not so much.
One could always post process the x-rite ColorChecker card or their new video card in DaVinci and generate a LUT from whatever they did with whatever DJI setting. That would speed things up, but it still will look dull to most people even if the colors were accurate. Apple learned that and has a saturated and contrasty "crushed black" Thunderbolt display for movies, and some colorists in Hollywood call them no longer pro for doing that and they buy some high-dollar Eizo CG-4K monitor to repair the Apple Thunderbolt idea. Apple is no where near accurate for real world, but it makes people think that's the way it is or should be with the Thunderbolt.
Personally, I find D-log far too flat and dull and requires too much post work which then becomes subjective (I'm playing more with Cinemalike now, and DJI added a whole bunch more color selections in the last update too.). Some post work shot on Youtube with D-log seems to fall short too with muddy blacks and dull whites, with noisy muddy blacks being proclaimed as shadow detail.
Personally, I find D-log far too flat and dull and requires too much post work which then becomes subjective (I'm playing more with Cinemalike now, and DJI added a whole bunch more color selections in the last update too.). Some post work shot on Youtube with D-log seems to fall short too with muddy blacks and dull whites, with noisy muddy blacks being proclaimed as shadow detail.
This is why a LUT is worth trying, the DJI ones mentioned above work well with P3 or P4 footage.
Note you can reduce the opacity of the effect in fact it's almost always best to at least knock it back a bit.
Once you have the routine it's a pretty slick process.
The DJI LUTs are also rather nice with flat protune gopro footage.
ummm... The video doesn't seem sharp at all at this end. The -2 might be too much softness.
The blue sky, being darker in a central spot, looks to be a polarizer used too instead of a ND or a Grad. ND? Okay, why the tilted horizon (You can fix that in the gimbal settings) too? Mine leaned the opposite way and I have a 0.4 dialed in.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2
- Age
- 69
The horizon is not tilted, it is the natural shape of the land, as it goes around the other side is OK. Sharpness is an issue I am still figuring out. May have been a polariser, thought it was a ND. Will have a play on the weekend with other settings. Don't have much spare time so I am fairly certain I will run with standard settings for videos and what DJI outputs does the job. Thanks for the reply.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2
- Age
- 69
For those who may be interested in another example of using the DJI format vs DLog. I took this a couple of weeks ago, using DJI color, standard sharpening, then brought it into Premiere Pro, no adjustments done and exported it to You Tube using a setting found on You Tube at 2160 4K, bitrate encoding CBR, target bitrate 50, maximum render quality and maximum depth. A user said after much experimenting he felt You Tube gave the best result on you tube. Of note is Adobe Media Encoder uses 2160 4K bitrate encoding of VBR, 1 pass and bitrate of 40. Haven't sorted the best way to export yet.
See the result at You Tube. So, I know the light is good, and I did use a polariser and ND4, but the output is OK. Sort of justifies the argument of do you really need to play around with DLog.
The 4WD is my work vehicle and has a removable camper on it my wife called "the Hump". So I can now say my partner in life likes to go humping with me. For more of this you can find photos and videos at Flickr, if you are interested. Click on the name> Geoff Wise
Last edited:
Similar threads
