C100: AVCHD better than Atomos Prores?

BeeHop said:
If your going to go to the effort of using an external recorder it has always made very basic sense to me to use the highest quality setting. Otherwise don't use one.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe I'm going to be editing in prores anyway and don't want to hassle/space of hq.
 
Many reasons/sense to shoot at 4:2:2 vs HQ.

I would have thought 4:2:2 looked much better than this. The lower detail is particularly strange.
 
Quick test Jpegs from FCP7 to compare captured Prores 422 and downconverted ProRes HQ to 422. All at 400%

422 HQ.jpgRecorded 422.jpg422 downconverted.jpg
 
1st is recorded ProResHQ, 2nd is recorded ProRes 422, 3rd is ProRes 422 downconverter from HQ.

Whats the verdict going by the right hand side of Elmo's red beard ?
 
Well without doubt the ProResHQ is better than 422. I don't see much difference in the ProRes 422 down converted from HQ tho. Again, I'd like to see someone go through the process of color grading, and see how well each format holds up.
 
Here's the difference between the 422 HQ and the downconverted 422 version of the same frame. Everything that is white to gray in the image are compression artefacts:

Difference.jpg
 
I feel like we're all living in a bubble here. In all honesty who will actually notice the differences in a finished product (not at 400% zoom)?

I used to be so sold on an Atomos, but then I see a short film like this - shot on a C100 in AVCHD - and realize that I should probably save my money.
 
SlyCooper said:
I feel like we're all living in a bubble here. In all honesty who will actually notice the differences in a finished product (not at 400% zoom)?

I used to be so sold on an Atomos, but then I see a short film like this - shot on a C100 in AVCHD - and realize that I should probably save my money.
Click to expand...

It's hard to argue with that...... but I wonder what lens he used, a good cinema lens makes everything better.
 
SlyCooper said:
I used to be so sold on an Atomos...
Click to expand...
It's not just a ProRes recorder, I also regularly use it as a monitor (with tools), view quick playbacks, set intelligent filenames with scene/shot/take numbers, accept or reject shots, and it also records to SSD which is now my primary media so I haven't bought an SD card since I bought my C100. Having ProRes HQ was the main reason I bought it but in reality it's a small part of what makes it essential to my kit.
 
Michael Thames said:
It's hard to argue with that...... but I wonder what lens he used, a good cinema lens makes everything better.
Click to expand...

Cinema lenses provide mechanical benefits, visual and mechanical consistency over the whole set and in terms of the Canon CN-Es there are camera profiles that reduce chromatic aberration.

But quality stills lenses will often match the overall image quality. Stills lenses can also work well with dual pixel AF and they might be easier to focus as a single operator since you don't have to re-grip when pulling focus.

This video is just good old internal Canon Log footage. The camera isn't the problem.
 
SlyCooper said:
I feel like we're all living in a bubble here. In all honesty who will actually notice the differences in a finished product (not at 400% zoom)?

True, but when yr pushing in the grade ProRes HQ hold up far better.

I used to be so sold on an Atomos, but then I see a short film like this - shot on a C100 in AVCHD - and realize that I should probably save my money.
Click to expand...

AVCHD for the web is marvellous!

Also you can view the Atomos as a cool little back up device - very handy. I don't mount mine to the camera i run it into a small backpack and just feel secure knowing i to a high rez back up going on.
 
I've used my c100 with the internal for a while then bought the Atomos Ninja Blade and every single dollar is worth it for me. Both as a montior and as a recorder (and somewhat as a backup but the c100 already has dual recording). I never ran any pixel-peeping tests but I've graded both over time and I can tell you that the ProResHQ hands down holds up to grading better in terms of highlights and shadows. And lets be honest... it's details that take something from good to great and this recorder is just a link in the chain of all the different aspects of a film.

If I were working off a smaller budget or needing the simplicity of run & gun/documentary work I might not care so much about the minor differences. But in the grand scheme of getting the details right, I'll use anything I can (within reason & budget) to get an edge up... better lenses, better cameras, better lights, better crew, etc...

I mean I think that if you're at the point where you're not concerned about the differences then your $1500 is better spent on lighting or something.
 
Last edited:
SlyCooper said:
I feel like we're all living in a bubble here. In all honesty who will actually notice the differences in a finished product (not at 400% zoom)?

I used to be so sold on an Atomos, but then I see a short film like this - shot on a C100 in AVCHD - and realize that I should probably save my money.
Click to expand...
I think what's come out of this thread if anything is that no one will notice the difference if you exposed the AVCHD properly in good light. Where I can see the value of an atomos recorder is with extreme grading and push/pull exposure corrections. Also Prores is easier to edit with on older computers.
 
That's all fine and dandy, but I bought a c100 over the GH4 because of low light and not so optimal conditions..... In a perfect world......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top