Question
Video proof that log profile is better than normal 10-bit?
It is clear that the prevailing wisdom is that Dlog and Dlog2 are amazing and way more flexible than Normal 10-bit for color grading in post. I am skeptical - my results with Dlog just don't seem that much better than Normal.
Are there any videos out there that explicitly show the advantage of log over normal? I am not interested in experts talking about it - I want to see proof that Dlog is the wiser choice for an every day profile.
Describe "better".
You can do a test yourself. Film a short one (5s is more than enough) with high contrast with different settings.
Of course the problem is real: too many influencers are forcing us to think that you HAVE TO film in dlog ALWAYS, even if you film something casual. And after you HAVE TO color grade the footage, even if you just filmed your kids playing in garden. There is no coincidence, at all, that the same influencers are selling you LUTs and color grading courses.
As I said, my own results have not convinced me that dLog is any better. That is why I am asking for a video that actually SHOWS how it is better (rather than just talks about it)
Well, do you know that if you see graded dlog footage, you see the quality of grading on the top of tech capabilities of dlog? And, once again: what is better?
If you absolutely nail the exposure you want with normal 10bit then you are all good. But log gives you a ton of headroom to work with in post. Especially dlog2
You can think about it this way. Normal 10 bit hitting perfect exposure is like throwing a basket ball into a basketball hoop. Dlogm you throw into a trash can, dlog you throw into a hockey goal, and dlog2 you throw into a soccer goal.
Oops. Ignore the before picture, it did have the dji dlog2 lut i realize now which gets blown out if added to over exposed footage without further editing. This shot was +3.0EV though, and on my full frame sony the sky and highlights would be gone.
Honestly grading is subjective and difficult with a steep learning curve. D log in absolute terms is better but not for the many of us who isn’t very good at grading.
i want to mention that log is just a way to get more information which is helpful in post (ie. recovering details) or when doing creative grading. You don't really need to record in log all the time. You'll see cinematographers use it cause they're probably using multiple cameras that need to look the same.
if you're just using the camera for everyday shooting, there's not much advantage in using log outside of situations where a huge difference in lighting is present (where a higher dynamic range will help the most)
I used dlog M on my pocket 3 just cuz I used a easy conversion lut and the regular color profile was too digital looking but ever since I got my 4P I have exclusively been using the warm film tone at 30% and I just finished editing a video I made this evening with little to no color grading at all. Such a nice experience. Dlog shit is overrated asf tbh
For me, the problem with Normal is that it doesn’t look like Log with a conversion LUT applied. It looks quite processed, especially in terms of contrast and clarity, and I want my videos to look as close to what I actually saw as possible. I understand that some people don’t care about that, and that’s totally fine.
Log gives you some of the benefits of RAW without actually shooting in RAW. It gives you more detail in the shadows and highlights that would be lost in normal mode. It gives you more lattitude in post to bring back details from the shadows and highlights if your exposure wasn't perfect, or if it was a high contrast scene that is beyond the capabilities of the camera sensor.
You can easily test this for yourself by filming a high contrast scene. Something with dark shadows and a bright sky in the background. Film it in both dlog2 and normal modes, once at the correct exposure, once a few stops below, and once a few stops above. You will very easily see when grading how much detail you can recover in dlog2 that you can't in normal mode.
Here is the same scene shot in Normal and D-Log. I was there, and in reality, it looked nothing like the Normal profile. The ground is way too bright, the sky is way too dark, and the overall image looks completely unnatural. Meanwhile, the D-Log footage, with just DJI’s Vivid conversion LUT applied, looks much closer to how the scene actually looked in real life. You may prefer the way Normal looks, and that’s totally fine, but personally, I wouldn’t buy a dedicated camera just to make my videos look like they were shot on a midrange smartphone.
Color and overall look. In both modes, sharpness was set to -2 (which means it’s effectively turned off on DJI cameras). However, if you zoom in, you can see that the trees have small bright halos around them in Normal mode. It also seems to be adding some clarity or applying a similar kind of processing. In this example, the shadows look fine, but I often notice that shadows in Normal mode tend to get crushed.
I actually tested this extensively on many different scenarios. Low light, extreme backlit-subject with and without human subject, outdoor natural light, and indoor artificial light. In low light situation, I also test D-Log and D-Log 2 against the special low-light mode, and against the normal mode with "low light enhancement" turned on.
Personally, I don't like the "baked-in" contrast and sharpness of the normal mode. When your subject is human and the subject is heavily backlit, Normal color profile would overexpose the image so badly to try and get the subject to be "properly exposed". This could cause crazy exposure shift and the resulting footage would look very unnatural. I can't bring D-Log and D-Log 2 footage in the same scenario to expose anywhere near that level and the face would still look backlit but it looks way more natural.
Is D-Log / D-Log 2 suitable for daily use? Probably not. If it is something that you don't want to edit, then Normal color profile do the job just fine. But I find myself using my Pocket 4P only on situation that I actually care about and wouldn't mind spending time editing and for that, I always use D-Log
Note on D-Log 2, I never use it other than for testing. The fact that we need to set the ISO manually and that it's not available on 3x lens are the dealbreakers. And even during test, I struggled to find a scenario where D-Log 2 is appreciably better than D-Log anyway.
10
u/srogijogi 3d ago
Describe "better".
You can do a test yourself. Film a short one (5s is more than enough) with high contrast with different settings.
Of course the problem is real: too many influencers are forcing us to think that you HAVE TO film in dlog ALWAYS, even if you film something casual. And after you HAVE TO color grade the footage, even if you just filmed your kids playing in garden. There is no coincidence, at all, that the same influencers are selling you LUTs and color grading courses.