C100: blackmagic 4K is here, how does it compare to the C100.

Postmaster said:
Since the 1DC records in a heavy compression, you not gonna get 4096x2160 actual detail out of it, so that argument is mute.
You probably get more detail out of a 2.5k BMC, even if scaled up to 4096x2160.
Click to expand...

I guess you can call the 1Dc's 460-500 Mbit/s a lot of things, but I haven't heard 'heavy compression' before. Yes it's not a 2013 wavelet compression design, but it works.

Adam Wilt writes:

"This is working at a photosite-per-pixel crop. The best clean resolution we’d typically expect from a Bayer-pattern sensor is about 80% of the maximum line count, or 1728 TVl/ph on a 4096 x 2160 image. When I look at the 4K clips, I see between 1500 and 1730-ish lines; not bad at all. By comparison, I might see a cleaner image out of a 4K RED image—detail extinction right at 1728 TVl/ph and minimal aliasing beyond—but that RED image is deBayered in post using RED’s excellent software, after being captured with a battery-sucking, fan-spinning camera. The 1D C is capturing, deBayering, and compressing this image in real time, yet the camera will run for 90 minutes on a comparatively tiny battery and it’ll barely get warm to the touch despite the complete lack of noisy fans. What’s not to like?"

Looking at the trumpet it is right up agains 1728 in certain places, and with an average of clean detail maybe 1625. It's a completely valid 4k image.

And maybe we should make clear that this is on a 1.3 crop Canon sensor, free from moire and aliasing. A look that many appreciates.

I welcome a 2.5 BMC vs 1Dc shootout. Not that it matters, a 4k S35 version is on the way. I hope it's good. I like when other people find good camera solutions.


 
Having had the BMC and now the C100 it's really down to what you plan on shooting or what the majority of your work is.

Why is it so hard to say both cameras are cool? Both cameras offer something the other doesn't. But really, each camera does something better than the other.

Obviously the thing the BMC does better than the C100 is the codec. ANd that is it! Well, maybe price. Now you have the advantage of the Global shutter. Pretty big feature, but you take a hit on lowlight and DR.

So yesterday I took a personal day for myself and picked up my C100 and went to the LA Renaissance Faire. I took two lenses and a monopod, two batteries and I packed a microfiber rag because we all know the Renaissance Faire is a pretty dusty environment. So, camera with two lenses and two batteries and a simple 32gb SD card and I shot for almost 8 hours. Came home with 1 battery still having half a charge (camera was on the whole time).

I started thinking when I got home what yesterday might have been if it were the BMCV1 EF instead of the C100 at the Faire. First, the dust would have concerned me. The BMC's drive bay would have needed gaffe tape to weather seal it for sure. Also with the BMC's rubber body, it would have been difficult to simply wipe down the camera to keep it clean. But that is a minor issue that is just part of the issue. Then I started thinking about monitoring the shots. You would either HAVE to use a EVF or monitor attached. Sorry, monitoring the BMC with it's built in monitor plain SUCKS! So my BMC rig is already bigger than I need it to be and I'm also powering another device (more batteries). Then, I recorded lots of sound. I saw a incredible band there and decided to use their music as the soundtrack to the edit. So with the BMC I would have needed an external sound device and again, more batteries and such. It was a hazy sun in and out day at the faire, so light values went up and down all day. On the BMC I had a variable ND filter but variable ND's suck (And I have a really nice one, it still sucks). Instead I also have 77mm ND's all the way up to 8 stops and use step rings to accommodate different lens diameters. I would have been switching ND's all day. So just another thing in the bag that would have been packed.

So now I have gaffe tape on the SSD door, external monitoring, external sound, and add on ND's in a very dusty environment with light changing minute to minute. I shot about an hour of this band to get my sound for the clip. Let's consider workflow... I would have recorded the sound to maybe my H4n (to stay portable) all while shooting the band visually with the BMC. Now with the BMC I would have shot RAW. Why not? It's there. So shooting the band might have chewed up a single 256gb ssd right there. Then at home I would have had to grade the footy in resolve and then sync up all that sound just to get to step on in the edit. Now keep in mind I was there for 8 hours shooting. I don't have 8 hours of footage but I shot quite a bit. Basically, I'd still be working with all those DNG's making proxies just to be able to get into the edit suite. So essentially I wouldn't have edited a single thing as of this writing because I would have let the computer take last night to export my proxies. So essentially I wouldn't have even been at the stage to sync my sound from the band I recorded yet. Let's keep in mind that when I would have exported the proxies, they would have just been first light grades. So now it's this morning and I have this material and all I've done is get to a point to where I can start editing. OK, so lets move a bit later in today and I finally have an edit put together. Now I would export an XML and jump back into resolve for coloring. Spend a few hours there, export the Prores, and now back the NLE for touch ups and maybe get back to sound. Then possible by Monday morning I might be able to export something for Vimeo? Who knows, it would have been a lot of footage to manage.

But I didn't use the BMC. I used my overpriced C100 with that 8 bit soccer mom codec that everyone hates. I took a camera with 2 lenses and 2 batteries. No goofy rig with monitors and sound hanging of it. I recorder sound to the camera internally to a mic that also is a top handle. I used the internal ND's that by the roll of a finger changes and is protected internally. I used my waveforms and other exposure aids to make sure I was getting the info I needed. I used the internal EVF that so many people complain about that worked just fine for me. I shot to a single card that I can buy at nearly any electronics store. I had push button focus and push button exposure to quickly get me in the ballpark for the ever changing light values. More than anything, the camera was extremely comfortable, light, and didn't attract too much attention. Lot's of people thought I was shooting stills. Day is done, park is closed, time to go home.

In less than 15 minutes upon sitting at my computer, I was editing. I told FCPX to ingest the footage and make prores files. I found the clip of the song from the band I wanted to edit over and dropped the clip into the timeline with my sound already to go and synced. I made some timeline marks on the clip for areas to add other shots and just went in a searched for clips or moments that would work. I ran off to the store to get some cat food. Came back, feed the cat and poured a glass of vino. Sat down and about 2 hours later was hitting the export button to export the entire edit that was graded and balanced for sound. I was in bed by midnight and watching the edit play over my Apple TV of what I just shot that day and edited that night.

So how about the image? For one thing, EVERY clip was capable of being used. Not a single second of moire, IR contamination, no un-useable sound or missing sound. Every clip was in focus, has incredible detail, sound in the file if I wanted to use it. But you shot 12 stops in 8 bits and a crap codec? YEP, and it looks fantastic! I exposed properly and it wasn't even that hard. I picked a kelvin and a picture profile (Cowpunks CineLog, great going on that one Brian) and shot shot shot. I controlled my DOF simply with the built in ND's. The camera was just an extension of what I was experiencing. I was just there to enjoy the sights, sounds and the boobs. And I got it on video, which was exported last night. But the image the image. The BMC has 13 stops and RAW! Honestly, having both cameras I'd say the C100's AVCHD 8 bit is right there on par when I look at the picture and think about the BMC.

So what did I learn? That there are cameras for all sorts of applications. It's horses for courses. And in 2013 if you are still looking for that one camera, you're just NOT going to find it because you are too concerned with what cameras do on paper and not while working. Then, if you somehow think that a certain camera makes other obsolete (especially when one is still on paper in specs only), you are only kidding yourself and being completely ignorant. It's like this. Today we have 4 cylinder cars that can beat the pants off an 8 cylinder car in a 1/4 mile race. Why? Because the 4 banger is just more advanced and is tuned to do it's job. But that 8 cylinder can pull a heavy trailer, right? Sure. So if you need all that robust strength, the BMC with it's RAW might be able to do VFX better like pulling that trailer. But if you need to finish that 1/4 mile in less seconds and still look really good doing it, the C100 will get you there and get you there a lot more efficiently.

But the BMC is so much better priced than the C100!!!!! Not when you start adding ND, sound solution, media, EVF, battery and power, a stupid cage to dangle all that stuff off of. Then, you need to darn camera itself!!!! There are poeple with all that stuff to support the BMC still waiting for the darn device to use it on!

SO do I think the BMC (any version) is better than the C100 or vice versa? NOPE. I think it boils down to what you intend to do with them. But if you think for a second that you can't shoot your indie film entry on the C100 and that it would only work with the BMC, then I suggest you find another career.....

Ren Faire SG.jpg

Here is the link to last nights 2 hour edit from all discussed in this post (make sure to download it as Dropbox is nasty to view videos):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/n52exdq2o7ow7h2/Ren Faire 2013 V1 (1920 x 1080).mp4
 
Last edited:
I be interested to see the video dusty if you feel like posting it up.

Also what were the two lenses you used? Have you tried something like the Sigma 18-250? Seems like the range and the IS would make it a great combo for the C100, much like the 14-140 is for the AF100.
 
Matthew B said:
I be interested to see the video dusty if you feel like posting it up.

Also what were the two lenses you used? Have you tried something like the Sigma 18-250? Seems like the range and the IS would make it a great combo for the C100, much like the 14-140 is for the AF100.
Click to expand...

I'm uploading it now to Dropbox and will update the post when it's ready for download. It's gonna be the edit I exported last night without any graphics and a shallow opening that I'm woking on today. But look at the post for a wonderful screen grab :laugh:
24-105 and the 70-200 were the lenses. I'll look into that 25-250...
 
Last edited:
Gr8 post dusty...TYVM! Reaffirms my decisions and gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling all over...in spite of the $1,000.00 price drop.
 
mhood said:
Gr8 post dusty...TYVM! Reaffirms my decisions and gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling all over...inspite of the $1,000.00 price drop.
Click to expand...

Alls good in the hood! Get it? The hood? Ok, I crack myself up according to my wife. LOL, every time she walked past my computer last night I had Renaissance Faire boobs on my monitor.
 
dustylense said:
Alls good in the hood! Get it? The hood? Ok, I crack myself up according to my wife. LOL, every time she walked past my computer last night I had Renaissance Faire boobs on my monitor.
Click to expand...

So that's where the warm, fuzzy feeling came from? SWMBO at my house does not tolerate competing imagery.
 
The fact of the matter is that it really doesn't matter which of these two cameras you choose, you'll get similar images. I did a shoot with both cameras over the on Friday. Which shot is from which camera?
Photo.jpg

clip 3.jpg
 
could use some higher res screen grabs RZE. Can you post them for download at higher res?

I guess the point here is that you mention that you have the two cameras on this shoot. If you didn't mention that I would say each grab looks nice and the end viewer wouldn't care the camera.
 
Vis-a-vis second two-scenes, I had to look at the noise/grain to make my decision (and @RZE, you may gloat and claim your free beer from me for that :cheesy:).

THanks - I love these little comparisons. Puts pixel-peeping into perspective.

Now, back to those Ren Fair shots (ahem)...
 
I actually imported the first image into Premiere and put a LUT on it be certain it was C100 footage. Great work RZE.

Was the BMCC shot on RAW or ProRes?

This makes me particularly excited to cut BMPC footage with C300 stuff when I get my hands on it.
 
the girl looking screen right is c100, the girl looking screen left is BMC, there are noticable casts on both images but the root skintones are both very similar and both very accurate. BMC was prores, I've been shooting a lot of c300 and its making me wonder about the need for RAW
 
RZE said:
the girl looking screen right is c100, the girl looking screen left is BMC, there are noticable casts on both images but the root skintones are both very similar and both very accurate. BMC was prores, I've been shooting a lot of c300 and its making me wonder about the need for RAW
Click to expand...

Thought so, second one (screen right) has far more fine detail than the first, and there's more aliasing on the one glancing off to the *edit: left not right.


Also has ProRes overall look to it (softer, veil-like quality).
 
Thanks for the comparison, Dusty. You certainly made your point.

The C100 looks very much close to the Sony FS100 in what it offers, even if a bit more expensive.
 
RZE said:
The fact of the matter is that it really doesn't matter which of these two cameras you choose, you'll get similar images. I did a shoot with both cameras over the on Friday. Which shot is from which camera?
View attachment 69757

View attachment 69756
Click to expand...

RZE said:
I am not up to date on photo encoding, heres a better example same girl but different cameras and scenes

http://www.flickr.com/photos/91727548@N03/8649947313/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/91727548@N03/8651046984/
Click to expand...

The stills do look fine from both cameras, thanks for posting.

I'm curious as to what changed since this post:

#63

RZE said:
Finally got my hands on a BMC, its a piece of crap all in all. The color is great the dynamic range is great but the aliasing is god awful. With the aliasing, I would never use it even on remotely serious jobs. The c100 is a better camera, though a single image may look better on BMC, a scene that has wide depth of field, minimal motion, and contrast on horizontal lines will have rainbow non sense. The BMC was remarkable in that I was able to overexpose by 4 stops and still get a great image out of it. But the aliasing renders the camera useless. Its not worth $2,000. Red has everything the BMC has but sharper with no aliasing, on the other hand, c100 is simpler and easier to operate.
Click to expand...

Unless these jobs weren't remotely serious then I understand. I've got a lot of issue with the moire/aliasing, of course I wouldn't consider it unusable but it would be interesting to hear if these were remotely serious jobs or not, and how you compare the two cameras. Understood if you can't talk about the work.

Thanks for posting.
 
My company was about the purchase a few BMCs at premium price off of ebay with my recommendation. I tested the camera out first at my buddys studio and I wanted to show him that you could over expose by 3 stops if you want, but he didn't care when he saw the footage because of the aliasing on the tvs and the wall, you'll have to download the h264 to see the wall. If you have web finishes its fine, but I have 1080p POP display finishes for product lifestyle videos, you're likely to get a shot ruined at one point or another. A narrative can bare aliasing, but advertising can't. I was just angry at the time because the potential was great but so was the risk. I hate risk when it comes to production, some people dont mind it.
https://vimeo.com/63406072

The canon look and the BMC look can be very similar to my eye. On my last shoot, the shooting ergonomics and workflow on set played more into the difference than the final images. I may have made mistakes if I only had a BMC shooting alone on a fast paced shoot, but I would have been just fine with just a c300. You can pay little and get a great image with increased risk factors, or you can pay more and get a great image with decreased risk factors. As far as I'm concerned, comparing the image quality isn't really the right question, the security and workflow is, hence the ambivalence.
 
Thanks for the thought-out response. I actually agree about the moire being a pretty strong risk for advertising. Beauty and Moire do not mix, yet most of my income comes from the beauty market, shooting females and hair. Moire has no place there, the second hair starts to buzz or looks crunchy things have gone wrong... I'm pretty invested in Blackmagic and I'm hoping the solutions for moire and aliasing are strong.

Ergo is a different story, I've never been bothered by it but most cameras are slightly or extremely ergonomically challenged as of the last few years. I can see how that plays into it for a lot of people, and of course the workflow depending on which option you choose.

If you get to show the footage from those shots at some point, I would be interested in seeing it.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top