C100: $20 Says this beautiful little PR documentary was shot by a C100.

nedcam

nedcam

Well-known member
Saw this today, not only is it an incredibly effective sales/PR piece but I can't help but think it was a C100. My reasoning:

1) It was a REAL wedding so they would want to stay unobtrusive, even though it was done by one of the country's largest advertising agencies and produced by a high end LA TV spot prod co by a big time DP (I researched all this having nothing to do today).

2) Since it is not for TV they probably weren't concerned with the 4:2:2 vs 4:2:0 issue, so that would lean to it being an unobtrusive stripped down C100.

3) And most importantly: THEY HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM I DO WITH PURPLE/PINK IN CAUCASIAN SKIN TONES THEY CAN'T GRADE OUT at :47 & 2:19. An issue that has been the topic of several threads here and I still can't figure it out and the reason why I started this thread, besides wanting to win some money from you folks. Seems to be common with the C100.

And it was edited by the commercial industry's premiere post house, so they probably did all they could, so that's why I think it's a C100.

I have an email into the asst GM of the post house and she is going to run done the cutter to ask the camera and codec. Whatcha think? Wanna bet? I am still working on getting the purple/pink out of WBing.

http://adsoftheworld.com/media/online/esurance_equal_dreams
 
Last edited:
don't agree with you there. I found this image particularly ugly, too contrasty, and very very noisy for the dancing sequence. Looks much more like a 5d mk III (or less). poorly lit, useless exaggeration of shallow depth of field (I thought those days of discovering full frame sensors were over...), bad composition....nothing there for me. :huh:


weird what you say about skin tones, never had that issue my self, with both C100 mk I and mk II..
 
Some of those shots actually remind me of my old AF100, though the magenta skin definitely makes me think of every time I shoot lighter skin tones on WideDR.

I was talking to a C300 shooter last night who shoots a modified WideDR profile and gets some absolutely beautiful skin tones. I tried replicating the settings in my C100 and so far, no luck. Let us know what you find out though. Rather curious.
 
What lights are you using when you get bad skin tones? I've only seen that issue with LED lighting and there are other camera systems that it's much worse on.
 
coutard said:
don't agree with you there. I found this image particularly ugly, too contrasty, and very very noisy for the dancing sequence. Looks much more like a 5d mk III (or less). poorly lit, useless exaggeration of shallow depth of field (I thought those days of discovering full frame sensors were over...), bad composition....nothing there for me. :huh:


weird what you say about skin tones, never had that issue my self, with both C100 mk I and mk II..
Click to expand...

You can do all that in post. So your not saying nothin. Too sharp for a 5D III.
 
TSDavis said:
Some of those shots actually remind me of my old AF100, though the magenta skin definitely makes me think of every time I shoot lighter skin tones on WideDR.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing. I noticed how the highlights clips really fast. Could be a c series camera, but it looks like they may have been in a a funky profile that allows for faster highlight clipping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top