Rand GambleI have heard people say that you get more detail in the blacks when scanning film with LOG vs. Linear. Since were working with the RED I wouldn't imagine that to be true since it is digital and were not having to worry about film density?
True and kinda not true. The original Kodak LOG Cineon format was to emulate film densities, but in that process Kodak also made a 10bit format that is as good for post at 16bit linear. I find LOG the most bang for you buck and would rather deal with the hassle of LOG LIN conversions then higher bit, 12bit and 16bit linear formats. The exception being stuff like openEXR, which REDCINE doesn't support. 16bit TIFF should hopefully be replaced.
Also Stu Coined it, LOG being the new LIN. A lot of things that you call LIN have gamma curves similar to LOG.
I have read that "Color correcting in Log space is very unpredictable."
This is when people Grade LOG though LUT's, a lot of programs make you do this because they don't have the LOG to LIN conversion tools, Apple COLOR being one of them. But ideally you would do a LOG to LIN (GRADE) LIN to LOG, back out as DPX. This would all have to be done in FLoat of course. Grading LOG through a LUT is fine when you grading by eye, and that LUT is totally calibrated to your final format, but it doesn't interact the way linear does. If you are using balls, its like TURN TURN TURN TURN TURN and NOTHING Happens, then BOOOM! it changes.
People argue LOG LIN back and forth, and I think this is why, its math isn't the same. Even people like Lucas at Assimilate tell you to use LIN if you don't know what you are doing because he doesn't want to deal with the hundreds of emails from people saying something isn't working.. LOG is different enough that people who have never worked with it before are having to grade everything from the beginning and kinda screwed if they thought presets would transfer over, previous COLOR and FX settings from LIN will never transfer over to LOG.
I have worked on lots of 10bit LOG footage that has been blow up to 35mm, on 1000 screens and I can say LOG is better for film work. I worked on one feature that was 4:2:2 HDCAM blown up to 35mm, I thought it looked great, but the blacks and the whites where a tad too harsh. Yes it was amazing and facility did a great job, but I always feel like LOG footage on 35mm looks that much better, not matter how many people say it doesn't matter. Even the same HDCAM doing a PANALOG color curve would have looked better on 35mm.
Anyway, experiment, but 10bit LOG is better.
Here is a link that addressed a couple interesting points on LOG vs. LIN
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/archive/index.php/t-57860.html
Arguments like this give me a headache. Find someone at a facility who has seen their work on 35mm on a thousand screens, take their word for it and move on. Hans Nystroem is correct on that thread though..
