D Log or D Cinelike??

[Ben01]

I've seen some pretty bad comments regarding D Log on the phantom 4 pro and I just thought I'd put it out on here what you guys prefer out of the 2 above??

I'm very new to this drone so having really had the opportunity to experiment fully but from what I've seen so far I think I definitely prefer the d cinelike. I also shoot footage with a Panasonic Gh4 and use cinelike d colour profile for that.

Can anyone also advise their favoured settings with regards to the colour profile - then maybe I can give a retest and see how I go ??

Thanks.

 

[tml4191]

d cinelike (-1,-3,-1(or -2)
why? I don't like the iso 500 locked results on the new dlog profile.

 

[phynesse]

I have actually stopped using DLOG. In short, the 8bit footage in combination with DJIs gamma curve is just not a good combination.
It's a common debate whether or not 8bit footage makes sense for LOG to begin with. And if you start pushing P4pro footage you will quickly see why - lots of noise when increasing saturation for example.
In addition, DLOG requires you to overexpose 1-2 stops for proper exposure. That means you have to raise ISO beyond 100 even when in average lighting, which you really should avoid -> noise.
And latest firmware gives you base ISO of 500 .. which to me isn't an option.
So I m flying DCinelike at 0,0,-1 (trying to avoid having to increase saturation as mentioned above).

So if you re unsure, I personally would recommend staying away from DLOG.

Sebb

 

[inkytog]

Cinelike and an ND filter for me. Settings -1,-3,-2. The only downside is that now you don't get to see what it looks like in a preview like the app shows for DLOG. It's a little flat this way and leaves some room for grading. I don't play too much in post. Tweaks on the highlights mids and shadows keeping an eye on the scopes. Add a little saturation back and I'm satisfied with the results. Ideally I'd remember to set the white balance too so it's constant but AWB seems ok. Just have to be careful if the scene changes and the balance changes although it can be tweaked in edit of course but for video I prefer to nail the WB at capture due to it not being RAW.

I'm not a fan of over-processing the files. I see. A lot of drone footage that almost looks cartoon-like. Unless the project needs it I prefer to keep things as natural as possible.

Here's my first flight since the firmware update using the settings as discussed above. Also h264, 4K 25 worn 1/50 shutter and ISO 100 with ND4. Sticking to f5.6 as much as possible and is practical to do so.

 

[Ben01]

Nice thanks guys [emoji4]
Think I'll definitely be sticking with the cinelike!!

 

[Nickster]

Ben, I went back to just normal or truecolor. You can play with the ISO on that. But movies, I have tried Cinelike. Pretty good. Depending on the setting, I have tried others as well with some luck

 

[Dronefriend]

D-LOG and -3/0-1

Or

Cinelike -3/-2/-2

There is this strange tint I have found on all modes except D-LOG.. I cant seem to get the white balance as I want it. D-LOG makes this easier. But have yet to try it out more.

Keep experimenting..

 

[Ade5]

Im going with Cinelike for now.. Some testing here:

 

[Ben01]

Im going with Cinelike for now.. Some testing here:

Wow that looks really nice - obviously you've graded that right ???

 

[Ade5]

Wow that looks really nice - obviously you've graded that right ???

Yes, LUT applied and some basic corrections..

 

[Doctorcobani]

Yes, LUT applied and some basic corrections..

Congrats! Which LUT did you apply in these footage?

 

[Ade5]

Congrats! Which LUT did you apply in these footage?

Dont remember where i downloaded it. I got it on my pc. If you give me an e-mail i can send it to you.

 

[Dronefriend]

D-LOG and -3/0-1

Or

Cinelike -3/-2/-2

There is this strange tint I have found on all modes except D-LOG.. I cant seem to get the white balance as I want it. D-LOG makes this easier. But have yet to try it out more.

Keep experimenting..

This is from a couple of days ago when I tested out the modes on the lastest 12 April firmware.

They all have the same exposure, meaning when I chose D-LOG, I did not counter the increased ISO with lower shutter or higher aperture. They are all "same". (100 ISO for non-log, 50 Shutter, maybe 3 Aperture, cant remember that one.

They are all shot using -3 Sharp/ -1 Con / -1 Sat. I have not went with -3 sharpness before, but since I just didn't seem to ever get footage that didn't have some of the "cheap *** digital cam" feeling to them, I felt I just had to try it out even though I've been reluctant to before. And I think it improved a lot from -1 and even -2. I will be using -3, always, from now on.

These are Normal and Cinelike untouched.
(normal)
(Cinelike)
Notice how Cinelike gives a much more natural exposure. There are several areas in Normal where the image is underexposed or plain dark, where as in Cinelike, it is not. Also notice how the slightly darker image in Normal still does not provice better Highlights, image is just as blown in Normal as it is in Cinelike. Also, I see this unwanted green&yellow tint in the Normal picture, which is not as visible at all in Cinelike. They both have the same WB which I set manually.

Now, here is the same Cinelike image corrected in Da Vinci Resolve, next to D-LOG footage, also corrected.

Cinelike adjusted
D-log adjusted.

Notice how the corrected Cinelike picture have better highlights than the raw Cinelike image. This is especially noticeable by the white curtain in the window farthest away, and under the roof outside. Also, the image as a whole is brighter and clearer even though highlights are fairly pushed down. Unfortunately this gives an ugly effect on the floor, where the reflection is quite ugly in the corrected image, and natural in the untouched cinelike image. This could have been avoided, have I wanted to spend more time on it.

Lastly, notice how the D-LOG footage is better in all apartments, even though it has the most simple gamma curve applied to it. The yellow tint is completely gone and the wall is a natural white. The Shadows/Lift portion ofthe image looks great, the highlights are even better than the adjusted Cinelike image, and the image as a whole is a tad clearer overall, and the ugly effect on the floor is just not there. The colours are more accurate as well.

There is still testing to do, but from these results I have to say I am very impressed with D-LOG, it looks great to me. I wont be using -1 in Contrast in D-LOG though, as I believe it simply isn't necessary.

 

[Ben01]

Yes, LUT applied and some basic corrections..

What settings were you using for the cinelike?? All at 0 or ???

 

[Ade5]

What settings were you using for the cinelike?? All at 0 or ???

-1 -2 -1 .. if i recall correctly..

 

[David_Cambridge]

All

I have had very good luck with D-Log on my P3 4k. It clearly looks bad without post processing, but captures the greatest luminosity range of all the DJI choices. When you properly post process it it looks wonderful, and avoids as much as possible the clipping on either white levels or black levels. The expansion from a compressed luminosity has never produced any bothersome banding, which is the only downside to expanding flat images. Your mileage will vary based on the luminosity range of the subject.

Exposure is always set with the zebra display, setting exposure compensation to just avoid zebras on the brightest part of the image that I want. Typically, that is a setting from -0.7 ev to as much as a -2.7 ev, depending on what the zebras say. All other settings are 0,0,0, and any additional adjustments are performed in post, either with FCPX or Resolve.

 

[Rank1]

All

I have had very good luck with D-Log on my P3 4k. It clearly looks bad without post processing, but captures the greatest luminosity range of all the DJI choices. When you properly post process it it looks wonderful, and avoids as much as possible the clipping on either white levels or black levels. The expansion from a compressed luminosity has never produced any bothersome banding, which is the only downside to expanding flat images. Your mileage will vary based on the luminosity range of the subject.

Exposure is always set with the zebra display, setting exposure compensation to just avoid zebras on the brightest part of the image that I want. Typically, that is a setting from -0.7 ev to as much as a -2.7 ev, depending on what the zebras say. All other settings are 0,0,0, and any additional adjustments are performed in post, either with FCPX or Resolve.

Clearly we are complaining about the base iso500 of Dlog mode on P4P, which does not happen on P3.

 

[David_Cambridge]

ISO is a function of the sensor. It has nothing at all to do with the luminosity curve, which is what d-log is manipulating. What you are observing is the compressed range created by that curve. The blacks are pulled up, and the brights pulled down. The result is a pale, washed out image. This is by design, as that image, as I said in my post, gives you far more flexibility in color grading in post. All of the high end video cameras provide some form of log curve, and they all look bad without applying a LUT to spread the luminosity back to where t looks good to the human eye.

As to your point on the P3 4K, it does have the d-log gamma curve, and it works exactly as described. With proper post, it provides the best image, with the least chances of crushing the blacks, or clipping whites.

 

[Rank1]

Good info David!

 

[Raptorman0909]

ISO is a function of the sensor. It has nothing at all to do with the luminosity curve, which is what d-log is manipulating. What you are observing is the compressed range created by that curve. The blacks are pulled up, and the brights pulled down. The result is a pale, washed out image. This is by design, as that image, as I said in my post, gives you far more flexibility in color grading in post. All of the high end video cameras provide some form of log curve, and they all look bad without applying a LUT to spread the luminosity back to where t looks good to the human eye.

As to your point on the P3 4K, it does have the d-log gamma curve, and it works exactly as described. With proper post, it provides the best image, with the least chances of crushing the blacks, or clipping whites.

I've tested D-log numerous times and I keep going back to D-cinelike. What you say about high end cameras and the use of log profiles is dead on, but this is not a high end camera as it's limited to 8-bits. And, that, I think, is the problem. When you have so few bits and most of them are used to code mid tones you have fewer levels to code highlights and shadows and this exacerbates the banding problem. I'm not convinced there are ANY 8-bit cameras that can properly use D-log except on the occasion when the stars align and the scene contrast is favorable.


Brian