C300 II, 10-bit YUV 422 4K (410Mbps), Canon Log 2, Cinema gamut, Production matrix with PP CC Alexa to 709 LUT:
C300 II 12-bit RGB 444 1080p (225Mbps) upscaled and sharpened in PP CC to 4K, complete custom settings (pretty much every setting tweaked for skin tones, including the color matrix):
Both examples use a boom-mounted Schoeps CMC641 directly into the C300 II with a Mogami studio cable.
Lighting: 3 diffuse lights in front, a light below with a reflector, and a hair light above (+ 2 lights on green screen).
Lens: Canon 24-70 F2.8 II at F7.1, ISO 400.
1DX II 4K YUV 422 8-bit (500Mbps) 4K (~1.3 FF crop), custom non-log picture style, no color work in post (only contrast, luminance tone mapping etc.):
1DX II 4K YUV 422 8-bit (500Mbps) (~1.3 FF crop), custom non-log picture style, no color work in post (only contrast, luminance tone mapping etc.):
Both examples use the same Schoeps CMC641 and Mogami cable into a Zoom F4 into the 1DX II set up for Line In and appropriate gains stages to keep the 1DX II preamp set low.
Lighting: single light in front through an umbrella and a hair light (+ 2 lights on green screen, this time with magenta gels to help keep face less green from spill). 1st 1DX II example also had a light from the rear for hair.
Lens: Canon 24-70 F2.8 II at F2.8, ISO 640.
1DX II 4K transcode tips: 300Mbps MXF OP1a UHD is a good savings over 500Mbps MJPEG, and QT + Cineform is at least 2x better in bitrate for quality vs. ProRes. Cineform also encodes+decodes faster than ProRes. Sadly Apple 'banned' Cineform once it became open source and free (again, at least 2x better in quality + performance vs. ProRes (proprietary + licensed only)).
Discussion
Skin Tones
The 1DX II skin tones look better to me. There's more skin detail, more skin color gradients, more pleasing grain where the C300 II tends to make skin look plastic (too much NR in the mids to highlights, even when set off? (-1)). Interesting that the plastic skin comment has been aimed at the new Sony VENICE- curious if NR is the cause there too. I think letting through the right amount of noise is key for a good look, e.g. ARRI's Alexa's noise behavior.
4K Detail & Aliasing/moire
The 1DX II appears to provide more 4K detail and so far haven't had fine detail aliasing issues with clothing as I've had with the C300 II. C300 II HD is better than 1DX II HD (FF) which is soft and has significant aliasing.
Green Screen Keying
While the C300 II 4K YUV 422 10-bit and 2K RGB 444 12-bit keyed OK, I'm getting the best results ever with the 1DX II YUV 422 8-bit: even getting decent keys on fine hairs now (indeed lighting is a partial factor).
Summary
When shooting for in-camera color, log and > 8-bit isn't needed for 8-bit targets: pretty much all content until 10+ bit HDR becomes more popular- most people don't have HDR viewable devices. Back when I didn't really know the C300 II that well nor did I spend time trying to make the A7S II look better, the frequently bashed Sony skin tones did OK against the C300 II (AF C300 II clear superior):
The A7 III with a 6K => 4K FF sensor will dust the C300 II's 4K in real detail and without aliasing and moire. The same can be said of the Fuji X-T3.
For sound, to my ears the 1DX II being fed with the Zoom F4 preamps makes the Schoeps CMC641 sound clearly better than the C300 II's built-in preamps. I'm sure the C300 II would sound better with an external preamp too, however one of the value points of the $16K (when new) camera was built in XLR + phantom power and no extra complexity for an external preamp.
There are other elements which make a camera useful, including DR, builtin NDs and XLR audio, and when there's frequently a lot of camera motion, rolling shutter is a big deal (C300 II is one of the best, just below the Alexas).
In terms of psychology, I certainly had an unconscious bias for the C300 II being the better camera vs. the 1DX II since it could do "Alexa like color" and use Alexa LUTs in post, and that it was a lot more expensive. However after side-by-side tests and doing everything I could to make each camera look the best, the 1DX II is to my eyes (and ears with the preamp), the superior tool for image and sound capture for the kinds of shoots we do. Which brings us to the next thing that motivated a move to smaller lighter cameras and different kinds of shoots: gimbals.
I purchased the Ronin-m to fly the 1DX II and wanted the option to fly the C300 II as well. I found that the Ronin-m worked great with the 1DX II but realized I could only do short takes due to the weight. While the C300 II would balance (barely), it was way too heavy. So I started looking into overhead and spring-arms + vests and realized that was going in the wrong direction- more gear, more complexity and it would be very difficult to shoot in public in LA without generating a lot of unwanted attention.
While cellphones still have a ways to go in image quality and utility (Soderbergh apparently does a LOT of post work lol), mirrorless cameras such as the A7 III and X-T3 (and someday the A7S III) with a smaller single-hand-capable gimbal provide the best combination of image quality and versatility in dynamic/moving shot-making. For crews needing wireless AV transmitters and wireless FF and even zoom, those will still rig up on the larger+heavier side, and in those cases a spring arm etc. is no big deal for such a production.
When shooting for in-camera looks (or minimal post), the 1DX II, A7x III, and X-T3 and similar cameras have reached parity (and in some ways excel, such as 6K => 4K True 4K detail) with the dedicated relatively large and heavy cinema cameras. Thus, as it always should have been, gear is now commodity level, and we can all more seriously focus on craft- camera moves/angles, creative lighting, sets, and most importantly, great stories (even for weddings!). So I guess I should follow my own observations and re-read Save the Cat!
C300 II 12-bit RGB 444 1080p (225Mbps) upscaled and sharpened in PP CC to 4K, complete custom settings (pretty much every setting tweaked for skin tones, including the color matrix):
Both examples use a boom-mounted Schoeps CMC641 directly into the C300 II with a Mogami studio cable.
Lighting: 3 diffuse lights in front, a light below with a reflector, and a hair light above (+ 2 lights on green screen).
Lens: Canon 24-70 F2.8 II at F7.1, ISO 400.
1DX II 4K YUV 422 8-bit (500Mbps) 4K (~1.3 FF crop), custom non-log picture style, no color work in post (only contrast, luminance tone mapping etc.):
1DX II 4K YUV 422 8-bit (500Mbps) (~1.3 FF crop), custom non-log picture style, no color work in post (only contrast, luminance tone mapping etc.):
Both examples use the same Schoeps CMC641 and Mogami cable into a Zoom F4 into the 1DX II set up for Line In and appropriate gains stages to keep the 1DX II preamp set low.
Lighting: single light in front through an umbrella and a hair light (+ 2 lights on green screen, this time with magenta gels to help keep face less green from spill). 1st 1DX II example also had a light from the rear for hair.
Lens: Canon 24-70 F2.8 II at F2.8, ISO 640.
1DX II 4K transcode tips: 300Mbps MXF OP1a UHD is a good savings over 500Mbps MJPEG, and QT + Cineform is at least 2x better in bitrate for quality vs. ProRes. Cineform also encodes+decodes faster than ProRes. Sadly Apple 'banned' Cineform once it became open source and free (again, at least 2x better in quality + performance vs. ProRes (proprietary + licensed only)).
Discussion
Skin Tones
The 1DX II skin tones look better to me. There's more skin detail, more skin color gradients, more pleasing grain where the C300 II tends to make skin look plastic (too much NR in the mids to highlights, even when set off? (-1)). Interesting that the plastic skin comment has been aimed at the new Sony VENICE- curious if NR is the cause there too. I think letting through the right amount of noise is key for a good look, e.g. ARRI's Alexa's noise behavior.
4K Detail & Aliasing/moire
The 1DX II appears to provide more 4K detail and so far haven't had fine detail aliasing issues with clothing as I've had with the C300 II. C300 II HD is better than 1DX II HD (FF) which is soft and has significant aliasing.
Green Screen Keying
While the C300 II 4K YUV 422 10-bit and 2K RGB 444 12-bit keyed OK, I'm getting the best results ever with the 1DX II YUV 422 8-bit: even getting decent keys on fine hairs now (indeed lighting is a partial factor).
Summary
When shooting for in-camera color, log and > 8-bit isn't needed for 8-bit targets: pretty much all content until 10+ bit HDR becomes more popular- most people don't have HDR viewable devices. Back when I didn't really know the C300 II that well nor did I spend time trying to make the A7S II look better, the frequently bashed Sony skin tones did OK against the C300 II (AF C300 II clear superior):
The A7 III with a 6K => 4K FF sensor will dust the C300 II's 4K in real detail and without aliasing and moire. The same can be said of the Fuji X-T3.
For sound, to my ears the 1DX II being fed with the Zoom F4 preamps makes the Schoeps CMC641 sound clearly better than the C300 II's built-in preamps. I'm sure the C300 II would sound better with an external preamp too, however one of the value points of the $16K (when new) camera was built in XLR + phantom power and no extra complexity for an external preamp.
There are other elements which make a camera useful, including DR, builtin NDs and XLR audio, and when there's frequently a lot of camera motion, rolling shutter is a big deal (C300 II is one of the best, just below the Alexas).
In terms of psychology, I certainly had an unconscious bias for the C300 II being the better camera vs. the 1DX II since it could do "Alexa like color" and use Alexa LUTs in post, and that it was a lot more expensive. However after side-by-side tests and doing everything I could to make each camera look the best, the 1DX II is to my eyes (and ears with the preamp), the superior tool for image and sound capture for the kinds of shoots we do. Which brings us to the next thing that motivated a move to smaller lighter cameras and different kinds of shoots: gimbals.
I purchased the Ronin-m to fly the 1DX II and wanted the option to fly the C300 II as well. I found that the Ronin-m worked great with the 1DX II but realized I could only do short takes due to the weight. While the C300 II would balance (barely), it was way too heavy. So I started looking into overhead and spring-arms + vests and realized that was going in the wrong direction- more gear, more complexity and it would be very difficult to shoot in public in LA without generating a lot of unwanted attention.
While cellphones still have a ways to go in image quality and utility (Soderbergh apparently does a LOT of post work lol), mirrorless cameras such as the A7 III and X-T3 (and someday the A7S III) with a smaller single-hand-capable gimbal provide the best combination of image quality and versatility in dynamic/moving shot-making. For crews needing wireless AV transmitters and wireless FF and even zoom, those will still rig up on the larger+heavier side, and in those cases a spring arm etc. is no big deal for such a production.
When shooting for in-camera looks (or minimal post), the 1DX II, A7x III, and X-T3 and similar cameras have reached parity (and in some ways excel, such as 6K => 4K True 4K detail) with the dedicated relatively large and heavy cinema cameras. Thus, as it always should have been, gear is now commodity level, and we can all more seriously focus on craft- camera moves/angles, creative lighting, sets, and most importantly, great stories (even for weddings!). So I guess I should follow my own observations and re-read Save the Cat!
?