PDA

View Full Version : First Impression



telecam
02-06-2012, 08:35 PM
I got to play with a newly arrived C300 today. First impression is excellent, ergonomics, controls (most...) are well thought out, image quality is in par with what has been reported and the design and functionality are truly unique, a great achievement of Canon merger of DSLRs and camcorder technologies. So, overall a fantastic tool but here is my hot list of grievances:


No on-board mic: This is really an oversight. The modular design of the camera is fantastic and allows for stripping down the camera to almost nothing. But in the bare bone configuration, you still need to add a DSLR style powered mic (and not forget to turn it on…) to record audio. I wish a very basic mic would have been integrated in the C300 body.


Handgrip scroll wheel really hard to reach with index finger: I am really surprised by this but if the grip strap is firmly tightened (which it should), it is nearly impossible to reach the scroll which is used all the time to adjust iris.


Grip angle not easy to change: The locking ring that holds the grip in place and not very easy to access needs to be completely loosen in order to change the grip’s angle. This takes a bit of time and some dexterity; I much prefer the adjustable grip on Sony’s EX1 which can be unlocked and reposition at a push of a button.


XLR audio module should have really been built into the C300 body, not the detachable LCD monitor. Hopefully, a compact audio module that utilizes the EXT 1 & 2 ports on the back of the camera will offered as an alternative. Also, by sitting on top of the camera and away from the user eyes, the XLR audio controls are hard to see and reach.


No easy manual audio control when using the secondary MIC input on the C300 body. Level can be set to AUTO or be adjusted manually only the audio menu, not really practical. Mapping one of scroll wheel to control audio level would be great.



No auto-iris (or full auto). This would be very handy to have for documentary work or run and gun.


I’d like to see a firmware update that give the option to assign separate functions for the SELECT/SET and handgrip scroll wheel.


Canon XF Utility only available from CD. Canon should make a free XF utility available to download. That is a basic tool that is much needed to review, annotates and backup XF media. It should be really easy for producers, clients, journalists to download and install.


No easy way to duplicate a CP (Custom Picture Setting) other than copying it to SD card and copying it back to camera


No easy way to quickly set a SLOW or FAST MOTION record mode other then go through the menu in and change two separate items. I will be shooting 1080 most of the time and would like to have a quick way to switch to 720 over-cranked at 60Fps for slomos.


CHARACTER RECORD menu should be protected. Even though there is small warning on the LCD when this function is active, this is a very dangerous menu option to offer. I wish it could be disabled or hidden altogether.


Pre Rec not adjustable: Canon says it’s about 3sec…


Best,

J Davis
02-06-2012, 08:43 PM
Canon XF Utility only available from CD. Canon should make a free XF utility available to download. That is a basic tool that is much needed to review, annotates and backup XF media. It should be really easy for producers, clients, journalists to download and install.

+1
Adobe Premiere is a great clip viewing tool for mxf even if you cut with FCP
edit - thanks for all the other observations too

Noel Evans
02-06-2012, 08:54 PM
Canon XF Utility only available from CD. Canon should make a free XF utility available to download.

That really is ridiculous IMO. I downloaded some files straight from the cam to do a grade test - cant find the XF utility V1 anywhere - can get the updated however, which of course requires v1 to be installed.

Is there an EULA where it states you cannot share the XF utility?

cowpunk52
02-06-2012, 09:13 PM
That really is ridiculous IMO. I downloaded some files straight from the cam to do a grade test - cant find the XF utility V1 anywhere - can get the updated however, which of course requires v1 to be installed.

Is there an EULA where it states you cannot share the XF utility?

Noel, the XF Utility is not required for transcoding of the footage. If you're using FCP 7, then the XF log & transfer plugin is all you need. Get it here: http://software.canon-europe.com/software/0040354.asp?model=

And also the card structure must be in tact for transcoding - it won't work with just a single MXF file. For that, you'll need a third party MXF converter.

Philip Goetz
02-06-2012, 09:20 PM
So i got a cf card with footage on it and transcoded to prores and erased the card. There is no way to get full meta data to see, that is fstop, iso, lens, etc. Never got the clip browser to work. Rumor has it premier can read all the meta data. I am in fcp7. I could have also gotten meta data if i had the camera and card to go through clips.

Here's the video http://vimeo.com/36319448

J Davis
02-06-2012, 10:06 PM
... and also the card structure must be in tact for transcoding - it won't work with just a single MXF file.

This is exactly why I don't use the FCP plugin !

I spent the last 5 days with 400 gig of mxf (80 per day) and even though I'm cutting with FCP I've found it so fast to grab entire batches of mxf's and dump them on the premiere timeline so I can preview them. I can scrub the playhead across 10 clips at a time. Figure out my selects, then throw only what I need at Adobe Media Encoder /batch to prores. Meanwhile I can keep editing with FCP

skimmel
02-07-2012, 06:01 AM
I can scrub the playhead across 10 clips at a time.

Sounds like a real time saver! How do you do that and view all simultaneously?

cowpunk52
02-07-2012, 09:39 AM
So i got a cf card with footage on it and transcoded to prores and erased the card. There is no way to get full meta data to see, that is fstop, iso, lens, etc. Never got the clip browser to work. Rumor has it premier can read all the meta data. I am in fcp7. I could have also gotten meta data if i had the camera and card to go through clips.

Here's the video http://vimeo.com/36319448

If it's like the XF300 and 100 series, full metadata is only viewable in XF Utility. Maybe premiere as well, I haven't tried it.

Kholi
02-07-2012, 12:23 PM
I've heard aliasing reports from more than one source now.

Can we get a confirmation that it's probably compression?

cowpunk52
02-07-2012, 12:49 PM
I've heard aliasing reports from more than one source now.

Can we get a confirmation that it's probably compression?

It may be compression, lens, camera settings, or a combination thereof - but Alan Roberts' report on the C300 is pretty clear about aliasing performance:

"Figure 1 shows a single quadrant of one luminance pattern; for this exposure, the camera detail enhancement was turned down to minimum level (-10) which presumably means no correction, so this is probably the native performance of the camera. The lens was a Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8L USM zoom. There are clearly no null zones, where the wanted lower frequencies mix with aliases produced by spectral folding of the unwanted higher frequencies, alias products. This is extremely unusual in a single sensor camera, where the traditional Bayer-pattern mosaic of coloured filters must be decoded to provide a clean video signal. It also implies that there is an optical spatial low pass filter between the lens and the sensor, to reduce the amplitude of spatial frequencies outside the band which can be properly dealt with for HDTV."

And goes on to say:

"Detail enhancement can be quite severe, low levels are best. High levels of detail enhancement [sharpness gain] introduce null zones at 2/3 horizontal and vertical resolution limit, which are due to the small deviation of the camera gamma curve from a pure power law, which is a perfectly normal phenomenon. At low detail levels, this effect is invisible."

Interestingly, there is this phenomenon to consider:

"2.4 Resolution with other lenses

Figure 8 shows the resolution, at 1080p, with two other lenses [50mm prime F/1.2 & 100mm macro]. Ignoring the small exposure difference, both lenses appear to deliver rather more resolution than the 24-70mm zoom, the macro being especially sharp. It might be sensible to reduce the detail level settings a little when using these lenses. The null zones at ⅔horizontal and vertical resolution limits result from the default level of detail enhancement [Sharpness: 0] and are not remarkable"

Keep in mind, this is regarding 1080p shooting. For 720, aliasing becomes more pronounced. However, using a strong in-camera noise reduction setting is effective at cutting down aliasing in 720p footage while maintaining a detailed picture.



source: http://blog.creativevideo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/canon_c300_alan_roberts.pdf

Kholi
02-07-2012, 01:54 PM
Okay, so my own personal conclusion (from reading that paper, thanks CP) is that the camera shows very little aliasing/moire until you either drop really good glass on it (RPP's, Ultra Primes) or you roll with Canon L series glass and once you hit the 5.6 mark, things start getting jittery.

That's the kind of test I'd like to see run. EF lenses @ 5.6~8, sharpest points, shooting fine material and hair.

I never noticed GH2 aliasing to be as bad until I used Ultra Primes shooting between T4 and T8. Zeiss Standards, won't get it. Cooke's, or S16's, won't get it. I have some EF glass that I still need to test, but anyway, if anyone's game to test shoot some nice hair @ 5.6!

NewYorkLion
02-07-2012, 02:18 PM
Wow, can someone dumb this down to layman's terms for me?


It may be compression, lens, camera settings, or a combination thereof - but Alan Roberts' report on the C300 is pretty clear about aliasing performance:

"Figure 1 shows a single quadrant of one luminance pattern; for this exposure, the camera detail enhancement was turned down to minimum level (-10) which presumably means no correction, so this is probably the native performance of the camera. The lens was a Canon EF 24-70mm F/2.8L USM zoom. There are clearly no null zones, where the wanted lower frequencies mix with aliases produced by spectral folding of the unwanted higher frequencies, alias products. This is extremely unusual in a single sensor camera, where the traditional Bayer-pattern mosaic of coloured filters must be decoded to provide a clean video signal. It also implies that there is an optical spatial low pass filter between the lens and the sensor, to reduce the amplitude of spatial frequencies outside the band which can be properly dealt with for HDTV."

And goes on to say:

"Detail enhancement can be quite severe, low levels are best. High levels of detail enhancement [sharpness gain] introduce null zones at 2/3 horizontal and vertical resolution limit, which are due to the small deviation of the camera gamma curve from a pure power law, which is a perfectly normal phenomenon. At low detail levels, this effect is invisible."

Interestingly, there is this phenomenon to consider:

"2.4 Resolution with other lenses

Figure 8 shows the resolution, at 1080p, with two other lenses [50mm prime F/1.2 & 100mm macro]. Ignoring the small exposure difference, both lenses appear to deliver rather more resolution than the 24-70mm zoom, the macro being especially sharp. It might be sensible to reduce the detail level settings a little when using these lenses. The null zones at ⅔horizontal and vertical resolution limits result from the default level of detail enhancement [Sharpness: 0] and are not remarkable"

Keep in mind, this is regarding 1080p shooting. For 720, aliasing becomes more pronounced. However, using a strong in-camera noise reduction setting is effective at cutting down aliasing in 720p footage while maintaining a detailed picture.



source: http://blog.creativevideo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/canon_c300_alan_roberts.pdf

Stephen Mick
02-07-2012, 03:41 PM
That's the kind of test I'd like to see run. EF lenses @ 5.6~8, sharpest points, shooting fine material and hair.


Texas Media Systems was kind enough to loan me a C300 to shoot some testing. I'll do this fo' shizzle.

cowpunk52
02-07-2012, 04:08 PM
Texas Media Systems was kind enough to loan me a C300 to shoot some testing. I'll do this fo' shizzle.

Please make sure and take into account your sharpness setting, seeing as how this does affect the amount of apparent aliasing. I'd love to see a sampling of clips with sharpness at least between -10 and +5.

cowpunk52
02-07-2012, 04:32 PM
Wow, can someone dumb this down to layman's terms for me?

Basically, the gist is that the C300 does apply some detail enhancement (aka digital sharpening) at the default setting of 0. This can exacerbate aliasing to some degree, but typically not noticeable unless you're using a particularly sharp lens at an optimum aperture, due to it's ability to resolve more fine detail in the higher frequencies. If you take the sharpening setting down below the default, aliasing artifacts improve all the way to -10 (presumably native sensor performance), where aliasing effectively becomes a complete non-issue.

The advice is this - if you're using really good lenses like ultra primes or Canon L primes, especially stopped down, then you'll lower your chances of having aliasing artifacts if you lower your sharpness setting. If you're using zooms or budget glass, then there's less chance of aliasing artifacts at default or possibly slightly positive (+3) sharpness levels.

telecam
02-07-2012, 06:53 PM
That really is ridiculous IMO. I downloaded some files straight from the cam to do a grade test - cant find the XF utility V1 anywhere - can get the updated however, which of course requires v1 to be installed.

Is there an EULA where it states you cannot share the XF utility?

Here is a great memo from Andy Shipsides at Abel on ingesting C300 footage in various NLEs. The paper also has download links for AVID, FCP plugins and the XF Utility, MAC and PC versions. Way to go Andy...

http://t.co/NgaFkc1C

Thierry.

J Davis
02-07-2012, 09:18 PM
Sounds like a real time saver! How do you do that and view all simultaneously?
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic? I'll bite.
Dropping 10 clips simultaneously concatenates them end-to-end in the (temporary) timeline.
Scrub means to drag the playhead which shows everything in fast forward in the canvas window.
Its event footage that I'm editing so I'm not judging actors performances, just looking for establishing shot, interesting CU's build a story,
imagine cutting 6 or 7 cameras each with 2 cards down to 3 min, 5 min and 10min sizzle reels.


Here is a great memo from Andy Shipsides at Abel on ingesting C300 footage in various NLEs. The paper also has download links for AVID, FCP plugins and the XF Utility, MAC and PC versions. Way to go Andy...

http://t.co/NgaFkc1C

Thierry.

For everyone looking for a download link of XF utility ... there you go. Abel Cine to the rescue!

alpi69
02-07-2012, 11:16 PM
Wow, can someone dumb this down to layman's terms for me?
It means the C300 is one sharp camera with little aliasing. and better lenses might creep aliasing into the image, so you better decrease the sharpness then.

NewYorkLion
02-08-2012, 11:03 AM
Thanks for that!

Since i'll be using mostly L primes and zeiss glass, I guess i'll ahve to turn it down then.


Basically, the gist is that the C300 does apply some detail enhancement (aka digital sharpening) at the default setting of 0. This can exacerbate aliasing to some degree, but typically not noticeable unless you're using a particularly sharp lens at an optimum aperture, due to it's ability to resolve more fine detail in the higher frequencies. If you take the sharpening setting down below the default, aliasing artifacts improve all the way to -10 (presumably native sensor performance), where aliasing effectively becomes a complete non-issue.

The advice is this - if you're using really good lenses like ultra primes or Canon L primes, especially stopped down, then you'll lower your chances of having aliasing artifacts if you lower your sharpness setting. If you're using zooms or budget glass, then there's less chance of aliasing artifacts at default or possibly slightly positive (+3) sharpness levels.

Postmaster
02-08-2012, 12:19 PM
So what´s the point of spending $$ on expensive, supersharp glass, if you have to soften it or get moire?

And even if you can dial it in, that it is a wee bit sharper as cheaper glass, what´s left of that, after an aggressive delivery codec run over it?

Frank

dustylense
02-08-2012, 12:25 PM
Well, I'm going to assume the C300 is like the XF300/100 with the amount of control you can set to custom profiles. If so, you can spend years making CP's on this camera as they have so many adjustments you can make.

Stephen Mick
02-08-2012, 01:02 PM
Well, I'm going to assume the C300 is like the XF300/100 with the amount of control you can set to custom profiles. If so, you can spend years making CP's on this camera as they have so many adjustments you can make.

It is. In fact, the menu system feels almost identical to the XF305/300 I've used.

dustylense
02-08-2012, 02:28 PM
It is. In fact, the menu system feels almost identical to the XF305/300 I've used.
Awesome! I love my Xf105 and hope to acquire the C300. The image controls in the XF and C300 are quite extensive.

Stephen Mick
02-08-2012, 02:38 PM
I had some time late last night and this morning to play around with the C300 (thanks to Texas Media Systems and my friends Chris Curl and Luis Caffesse). Here are my initial impressions…

This camera begs to be handheld. The layout and ergonomics are probably as well thought-out as any camera I've ever used. It feels comfortable in the hand, even with a good-sized 70-200mm lens on it. The only "gripe" would be the fact that it seems like you have to use the Function button to toggle through ISO, WB and Shutter settings. I wish shutter and ISO had their own dials or controls, but this may be programmable in the setup. (Again, we only had the camera for a short time.)

I understand that people have varying deliverables and post budgets, but if (or when) I get a C300, I don't think I'll ever shoot anything but Canon Log. We set up a shot of the downtown Austin skyline, and exposed for it in Canon Log. Then we switched over to EOS Standard, and the zebras were all over the place! Now, when we looked at the two clips quickly on the monitor, the EOS Standard clip certainly looked nice, and if you were in a situation where you had to hand off footage to an editor and you weren't sure color-correction was going to happen, dialing in a look via the Custom Profiles can save a lot of hassle. But Canon Log really impressed me.

We also shot a good bit of night-time exteriors, and while we shot at up to 10,000 ISO, I think I'd shoot for a bit less than that as the upper limit of what I'd be most comfortable with. Still, to even be having the discussion of whether or not 10,000 ISO is usable is hilarious when you consider how much more sensitive cameras are now as opposed to three or five years ago.

As I have more thoughts I'll share them, but I think we all came away very, very impressed with the C300.

Stephen Mick
02-08-2012, 02:39 PM
Oh, and one more thing…

The ability to have the on-camera LCD on, as well as feeding monitors out of the SDI and HDMI ports simultaneously is nothing short of awesome.

Noel Evans
02-08-2012, 03:39 PM
Last night I saw an independently produced MTF chart with nyquist from the Canon EOS C300 and the Alexa overlapped. Now all that essentially shows is sharpness and aliasing in the form of a chart. Sharpness is not resolution.

Canon C300 with EF L lens. Alex with unknown lens (but I can find out - didnt think to ask). Bottom line is the C300 performed beyond the Alexa on the MTF and on the nyquist - well nyquist showed it beyond measurement meaning almost 0 aliasing. Way above Alexa on the chart.

Be careful however MTS only measures sharpness and as I said not resolution, it also does not measure many other components that make an image a whole. But the results on the MTF and nyquist were simply outstanding.

Also remember I am on no way shape or form an engineer and am simply relaying the information I viewed and the persons explanation of the data. I hate those kind of charts however, if it looks good it looks good (if you are subjectively viewing the image and not letting any form of emotion sway it that is). Remember theres a reason the Alexa is one of the most sort after cameras in the digital cinematography arena.

But, the C300 impresses me.

EDIT TO ADD: Agree with Stephen above - its probably one of the most comfortable units Ive ever picked up for the first time hendheld.

47670

J Davis
02-08-2012, 04:04 PM
Glad you guys are seeing the light. I was lucky to get a heads up last Dec on how awesome this beast of a camera was. The person I spoke to was telling me about their Alexa sensor comparison. I can't say who but I can say that they told me the c300 is the tip of the iceberg and this sensor will appear in more canon bodies to follow.

Elton
02-08-2012, 05:20 PM
Heard the same thing from someone credible--this sensor will likely be in a range of new Canon cameras.

Stephen--did you do any rolling shutter torture tests? I was impressed with the results from a few whip pans and an 85mm. Definitely snappy.

I'd like to see if the XF 50 mbps is actually any better than a Nano at 50 mbps. While the internal codec is decent, I don't think it's bulletproof. I'd still use an outboard recorder for anything motion challenged or super high ISO. Nice thing is Canon Log works in all frame rates and HD outputs.

Noel Evans
02-08-2012, 06:49 PM
Now if anyone has one or can get one - not that its the be all and end all - but Id like to see that camera shoot a lake where theres enough wind to create lots and lots of surface movement. Thats what Id consider the toughest torture test of the codec.

Rick Burnett
02-08-2012, 07:27 PM
I think the only thing that stresses a camera more than water like that is when they shoot out the confetti at the end of the superbowl. :) I wonder if Canon should have used a slightly more powerful OLPF in the C300? Given how different they are using the sensor than others, it will be really cool to see how this technology expands (and ends up in other cameras).

J Davis
02-08-2012, 07:43 PM
I know its not 4k cmos, its quad hd cmos, so every pixel in the 1080p final is made from 2 green, 1 red, 1 blue

Kholi
02-08-2012, 07:48 PM
You guys getting any requests for rentals immediately in your areas?

I'm wondering how the rental situations' gonna pan out.

cowpunk52
02-08-2012, 10:34 PM
I think the only thing that stresses a camera more than water like that is when they shoot out the confetti at the end of the superbowl.

There's a confetti shower at the end of this C300 video (4:58)

https://vimeo.com/groups/c300/videos/36117607
I'm not sure if there is a higher quality version available for download.

cowpunk52
02-08-2012, 10:45 PM
So what´s the point of spending $$ on expensive, supersharp glass, if you have to soften it or get moire?

And even if you can dial it in, that it is a wee bit sharper as cheaper glass, what´s left of that, after an aggressive delivery codec run over it?

Frank

Well, I think there are often a lot of benefits to sharper, and more importantly, more expensive glass - better contrast, edge to edge performance, and color rendition just to name a few. Typically you'll get better bokeh performance and have fewer aberrations. And more expensive glass usually has better build quality and handling - not to mention wide apertures.

Rick Burnett
02-08-2012, 11:01 PM
There's a confetti shower at the end of this C300 video (4:58)

https://vimeo.com/groups/c300/videos/36117607
I'm not sure if there is a higher quality version available for download.

Thanks for finding that. Man, the wide shot detail is awesome, that and the rolling shutter performance are just REALLY good. The artifacts in the confetti isn't horrible, I've seen WAY worse. I only notice it around the yellow helmet when playing, but when I pause, you can certainly see it. And before anyone comments, realize that I look at this stuff for rotoscoping purposes, which codec artifacts in motion DO matter. That said, again, the C300 really did a really good job on almost everything.

telecam
02-09-2012, 10:02 AM
Thanks for finding that. Man, the wide shot detail is awesome, that and the rolling shutter performance are just REALLY good. The artifacts in the confetti isn't horrible, I've seen WAY worse. I only notice it around the yellow helmet when playing, but when I pause, you can certainly see it. And before anyone comments, realize that I look at this stuff for rotoscoping purposes, which codec artifacts in motion DO matter. That said, again, the C300 really did a really good job on almost everything.

How can you guys possibly judge the confetti artifacts? Vimeo's h.264 encoding probably makes it look much worse than it really is. I think the only way to get the idea is too look at the camera original.

Rick Burnett
02-09-2012, 10:12 AM
How can you guys possibly judge the confetti artifacts? Vimeo's h.264 encoding probably makes it look much worse than it really is. I think the only way to get the idea is too look at the camera original.

No doubt there, it's just, right now, that's not an option. I've spent A LOT of time uploading VERY difficult scenes to Vimeo where I break the H.264 quite a bit, so I am very familiar with what to expect. I think the C300 did rather well compared to other situations, and very true, Vimeo could be making it a lot worse. Until these are out in the wild in quantity, we are still going to discuss what little we can see. And, as you point out, illustrates important considerations on not only IQ judgements, but also, that content delivery can be an important factor in final IQ as well.

telecam
02-09-2012, 11:09 AM
Good to know. On the other hand, I got the camera to record quite a bit of moirée yesterday shooting a fine pattern fabric but once uploaded to Vimeo, gone. I guess Vimeo uploads can also have a soothing effect...

Rick Burnett
02-09-2012, 11:33 AM
Good to know. On the other hand, I got the camera to record quite a bit of moirée yesterday shooting a fine pattern fabric but once uploaded to Vimeo, gone. I guess Vimeo uploads can also have a soothing effect...

This still really perplexes me. I wonder if the production version will have a stronger OLPF. I'd rather be a little softer and not deal with moire. Was this in 1080p?

Kholi
02-09-2012, 11:55 AM
ARen't these all production versions, though?

I'd like to see a still of the moire/aliasing... that's my biggest concern with this camera.

cowpunk52
02-09-2012, 02:52 PM
I'd like to see a still of the moire/aliasing... that's my biggest concern with this camera.

Hey, Kholi - while I've no doubt that it's possible to coax some moire out of the C300 in very specific circumstances, you should download and watch the test footage done by Echo Productions (Mike McNeese, in the thread with his review). There are a lot of framings in that test that show no moire in shots that I wouldn't have even attempted with other large-sensor cameras.

https://vimeo.com/36490272

Most notably, check out the brick path at 0:14, mesh netting at 0:49, arena seats at 1:12, brick buildings at 2:32 & 3:01 (along with the roof shingles), and the pedestrian walkway fencing at 2:34.

Also, this video has many wide shots of fine patterns on buildings and shows no visible moire that I could find: https://vimeo.com/36463509

I think that if Canon had used a stronger OLPF, the C300 would have lower resolution images like the FS100 and AF100 give. It seems like, along with the new sensor, they put in an OLPF that hits a sweet spot for performance and moire/aliasing safety.

cowpunk52
02-09-2012, 02:57 PM
There is also a very good moire test here using the EF 100mm f2.8 macro lens and very fine fabrics. None to be found.
https://vimeo.com/34531518

maarek
02-10-2012, 04:06 AM
Good to know. On the other hand, I got the camera to record quite a bit of moirée yesterday shooting a fine pattern fabric but once uploaded to Vimeo, gone.

You guys have to be careful, because moire and aliasing can appear after shooting if the post process workflow causes them. Viewport in FCP is always somewhat aliased if it's set to less then 100% for example.

Nuno Dias
02-10-2012, 04:44 AM
There is also a very good moire test here using the EF 100mm f2.8 macro lens and very fine fabrics. None to be found.
https://vimeo.com/34531518

That is amazing!

Mike McNeese
02-10-2012, 05:30 AM
You guys have to be careful, because moire and aliasing can appear after shooting if the post process workflow causes them. Viewport in FCP is always somewhat aliased if it's set to less then 100% for example.

That's true of any camera, any sensor, any resolution. Once you go below 100% of image resolution, those missing lines will still try to be represented. Typically, it shows up as moire. The camera can only try to minimize the issue at 100% resolution. The C300 does a stellar job at this.

James0b57
02-16-2012, 04:30 PM
Has some btw with the C300. By Jonathan Yi...
http://vimeo.com/36776929
http://vimeo.com/36776929

NeedCreative
02-17-2012, 07:21 AM
I have yet to see the camera alias, though it can probably happen in a every specific worst case scenario. One thing I need to do is throw on some sharp L glass and aim it perfectly focused at a window screen. The FS100 had pretty bad luma moire there. I wonder if the C300 will. My guess is it will be minimal but present. Most cameras do it to some extent. It just seems the C300 is exceptionally good at minimizing it, possibly the best 1080 cam yet.

The camera definitely can alias, but it's a extremely rare event. When I shoot I will know more, but the only place I ever saw it was on the most finite detail of a slanted bamboo shade that moved though the frame. It was very slight, but it was there. (Look for the C300 short Parallel - https://vimeo.com/groups/c300/videos/34751772 - made in Japan - and download the original file and watch. There was extraordinary sharp fabric detail in it with no moire, but the opening shot showed a little aliasing. And this test was some worst-case-scenario stuff!)

The Fs100 was far worse with aliasing than the C300, and that's saying something because it was vastly better than a Canon DSLR in that respect. I pointed the C300 at a light, overexposed, with a lens wide open showing some CA. The FS100 turned into a multicolored aliased mess around the edges where the CA showed. The C300 showed the color, but with very little to no aliasing. It's a big difference, never mind how nice the highlights rolled over the FS100 (to be expected with 2 more stops of DR)

Rick Burnett
02-17-2012, 07:43 AM
The highlight rolloff on the FS100 is not a problem of dynamic range, it's a problem with how they clamp the values as any of the channels approaches max value. The 7D has less dynamic range yet it rolls off MUCH better. Canon just has much better special sauce in their algorithms (which I have passed back to Sony engineering to ask them to fix)

In terms of colored moire, the AF100 is the best 1080p camera I've see yet, it has ZERO colored moire. That said, it still aliases, but it's pretty amazing. (The GH2 also does not have colored moire, but it aliases sooner than the AF100). Now grated, the resolution of the AF100 is much lower. I just find it fascinating that they've eliminated the colored moire but no one else has.

And yeah, a screen is THE WORST possible shooting scenario I've seen. :)

Kholi
02-23-2012, 12:14 AM
Finally got my grubby mitts on this thing today, spent hours with it from daylight to early night. Shot a lot of torture material, and just plain-ol goofing off in a 12 Camera comparison.

At least with EF glass, moire/aliasing isn't something to be concerned about at all. If it's there, I'm not seeing it, what I am seeing is a damned fine image that I wish I could afford.

Congrats to those that purchased.

alpi69
02-23-2012, 05:58 AM
yes, pretty much everything I have seen so far was looking good and without any issues like DSLRs had.
Seems to be near or at the level of the F3 plus the advantages of Canon-lens-implementation.

cowpunk52
02-23-2012, 02:18 PM
yes, pretty much everything I have seen so far was looking good and without any issues like DSLRs had.Seems to be near or at the level of the F3 plus the advantages of Canon-lens-implementation.In terms of moire performance, it pretty handily beats the F3

Stephen Mick
02-23-2012, 02:21 PM
In terms of moire performance, it pretty handily beats the F3

That's probably true, but I've never had any real-world issues with moire on the F3. YMMV, of course.

NeedCreative
02-24-2012, 11:07 AM
The highlight rolloff on the FS100 is not a problem of dynamic range, it's a problem with how they clamp the values as any of the channels approaches max value. The 7D has less dynamic range yet it rolls off MUCH better. Canon just has much better special sauce in their algorithms (which I have passed back to Sony engineering to ask them to fix)

Yes you're right I should have qualified a my comments more but I was rushed as usual lol. Even the 60D rolls off nicer on highlights. That always made me upset about the FS100 (the F3 is better, but not by much without S-Log).

What the DR in the C300 buys you is the ability to pull more detail out of your highs/lows, shoot in contrasty situations and get more picture info to work with, etc. For example, I couldn't get the opening shot in the car of my short "the Cost" with natural light on the 60D and still expose for the highlights. The inside would have just been too dark.

alpi69
02-24-2012, 11:40 AM
Speaking of that shot: did you bounce light in the car or was the C-Log good enough there? If so that is impressive.

Noel Evans
02-29-2012, 02:32 AM
C300 sharpness settings are -10 to +50. I'm just locking it in log which is at -10. I'm sure at +50 with super sharp glass you could coax the moire a little. In canon log it's crazy sharp - sharper than Alexa on an MTF chart and better on Nyquist , essentially meaning in canon log it's sharp and there's absolutely NO moire. In fact it's out of the Nyquist scale it performs so well. Alexa is just better so those pints aren't the be all end all but it's what's being discussed here.