C300: C100 better blown out whites than C300?

Alvise Tedesco

Alvise Tedesco

Well-known member
Hi there.
I'll be shooting long hours for a long period on a classroom. Slightly hostile/degraded environment too. No way I can use my Scarlet if not for outdoor establishing/beauty where we can move in 3-4 people crew.
I tested a C100 using wide dr setting (since I will not be able to control the light all the time, I need the smoother roll off into blown out lights settings).
While I see flaws in the codec, so I'll test a C300, I happily found the wide dr setting to be pretty decent on blown out lights. There where no annoying shift toward yellow or blue. Also flesh tones where better than what I was remembering from a few hours with a C300 1 year ago.
So, here's the question:
Aside the obviously poorer codec issue, Is it possible that color science and gamma tweaking evolved from C300 to C100?
Or is it just that I don't know the C300 and I have to test it (with latest firmware) more than what I have done 1 year ago?
Thanks for helping
Alvise
 
Alvise Tedesco said:
Hi there.
I'll be shooting long hours for a long period on a classroom. Slightly hostile/degraded environment too. No way I can use my Scarlet if not for outdoor establishing/beauty where we can move in 3-4 people crew.
I tested a C100 using wide dr setting (since I will not be able to control the light all the time, I need the smoother roll off into blown out lights settings).
While I see flaws in the codec, so I'll test a C300, I happily found the wide dr setting to be pretty decent on blown out lights. There where no annoying shift toward yellow or blue. Also flesh tones where better than what I was remembering from a few hours with a C300 1 year ago.
So, here's the question:
Aside the obviously poorer codec issue, Is it possible that color science and gamma tweaking evolved from C300 to C100?
Or is it just that I don't know the C300 and I have to test it (with latest firmware) more than what I have done 1 year ago?
Thanks for helping
Alvise
Click to expand...

Alvise, thanks for your comment on my vimeo by the way.

Im not sure what you saw on the C300, when you tested it, so if you can see a difference between then and now will depend. From what I understand the firmware updates matched the C100 and C300 closer in colour as a result of the fix that was applied.

For my money Id be shooting 300 on Canon Log.
 
I remember I wasn't very much impressed with clipped highlights and skin tones. But at that time I did not use log. Morover, I shot side by side with the beefy image quality of the Red.
Based on those old memories, when I shot with the 100 few days ago, I was pleasantly impressed and just thought Canon had possibly improved something in the lower 100 over the 300 (despite the lesser codec and other known limitations).
Say, I asked myself if a 100 with external recorder could have improved IQ over 300 with the very same external recorder (not that I want external recorders for this job. Rather I want to enjoy the big advantage of the small form)
I'll give a try with the 300 and log, thanks
 
Last edited:
I can't imaging the C 100 being any better than the C 300 with over exposed areas. In my experience the C300 really sets the bar as far as high light handling goes with cameras in its price range. Even before the firm ware upgrade and using some of my earlier custom picture profiles, I was very impressed with the C300 in terms of high light handling. I've now got a much better custom picture profile than I had previously and I'm still very pleased with the highlight handling, and colorimetry of the C 300.
 
The C100 buries a lot in superwhites, particularly in log and wide dr, and it holds onto color nicely. Rumors suggest AVCHD is holding onto more highlight detail than the HDMI port transmits to external recorders, though I have my doubts... Your experiences might have to do with how the files were handled in post.

Philip Bloom suggested the log mode is a bit revised on the C100 and possibly better than on the C300, though similar overall. (The sensor is obviously the same.)

Fwiw, I find the highlight handling on the C100 to be excellent, on par with the F3, still significantly worse than the Alexa. Skintones are very good, other colors a bit exaggerated. The camera is tremendously underrated, in a very different league from dSLRs.
 
Policar said:
Philip Bloom suggested the log mode is a bit revised on the C100 and possibly better than on the C300, though similar overall. (The sensor is obviously the same.)
Click to expand...

That was possibly true, however the C300 just had a firmware upgrade which I believe has mapped Canon Log better than prior to - so Canon Log on both should match with an updated camera.
 
Yes the color science and it looks like the log profile have been tweaked on the latest C300 FW to match the C100. It's an improvement - the colors needed less wrangling to get accurate, at least from what I gather from Brian Weed who made the revised profiles I have shot on recently.

You're right about superwhites - the camera holds onto a ton of info there. I just wish more of it made it into the under 100 range... not that I am complaining.
 
Policar said:
Philip Bloom suggested the log mode is a bit revised on the C100 and possibly better than on the C300, though similar overall. (The sensor is obviously the same.)
Click to expand...

I think you misread him. I was intrigued and hence searched Philip Bloom's site and found this quote "It’s very attractive as the form factor and log out of the C300 are killer and they are both in this camera."

So he is praising the C300 c-log. If he has said it anywhere else, then I couldn't find it.

I agree with Noel. The c-Log in the C300 is very nice. You can push and pull it to a great extent. All the best!
 
indiawilds said:
I think you misread him. I was intrigued and hence searched Philip Bloom's site and found this quote "It’s very attractive as the form factor and log out of the C300 are killer and they are both in this camera."

So he is praising the C300 c-log. If he has said it anywhere else, then I couldn't find it.

I agree with Noel. The c-Log in the C300 is very nice. You can push and pull it to a great extent. All the best!
Click to expand...

You thought wrong. Both of the posters above corroborated that Canon used a better log mode on the C100 than the C300, and have since ported it to the C300.

Furthermore:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12614.msg225274#msg225274

"C100 had very little experience with but am told by friend who has one and C100 that the log is even better"
 
Finnegan said:
This. I've shot extensively on both the C300 and C100 and don't find there's any comparison at all. The C300 is on an entirely different level, C-Log included.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't quite see how that can be the case considering it's the same sensor and Digic chip.
 
8string said:
mxf vs avchd
Click to expand...

First, MXF is a wrapper, not a codec (XF is the codec). Secondly, AVCHD will be visually identical for the most part. It may be half the bitrate, but twice as efficient as MPEG-2. Finally, a Ninja-2 removes any AVCHD limitation all together making the finally look more or less identical.
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
?l. Secondly, AVCHD will be visually identical for the most part. It may be half the bitrate, but twice as efficient as MPEG-2. Finally, a Ninja-2 removes any AVCHD limitation all together making the finally look more or less identical.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem identical in the real world to my eyes. My experience shooting on 4:2:0 is all about losing latitude in shadow and highlight gradients. Not so in 4:2:2. Try shooting a person in bright sunlight who is wearing a baseball cap,without using any fill. You'll see my point.it's doableon 4:2:2. Did it Friday. Had to.
And adding a ninja changes the whole question. Irrelevant to the discussion, IMHO.
I'll take Noel and Finnegan's real world opinions, since they've been there, done that. I would love to be able to afford a c300. If it's good enough for p. bloom's pro work, that's a pretty strong recommendation.
 
Last edited:
8string said:
It doesn't seem identical in the real world to my eyes. My experience shooting on 4:2:0 is all about losing latitude in shadow and highlight gradients. Not so in 4:2:2. Try shooting a person in bright sunlight who is wearing a baseball cap,without using any fill. You'll see my point.it's doableon 4:2:2. Did it Friday. Had to.
And adding a ninja changes the whole question. Irrelevant to the discussion, IMHO.
I'll take Noel and Finnegan's real world opinions, since they've been there, done that. I would love to be able to afford a c300. If it's good enough for p. bloom's pro work, that's a pretty strong recommendation.
Click to expand...

Thats funny, my buddy provided the c100 in the testing of the cameras with Finnegan and he told me different results.

Disregarding the prores coming off the c100 in a comparison on image quality makes sense why?
 
8string said:
It doesn't seem identical in the real world to my eyes. My experience shooting on 4:2:0 is all about losing latitude in shadow and highlight gradients. Not so in 4:2:2. Try shooting a person in bright sunlight who is wearing a baseball cap,without using any fill. You'll see my point.it's doableon 4:2:2. Did it Friday. Had to.
And adding a ninja changes the whole question. Irrelevant to the discussion, IMHO.
I'll take Noel and Finnegan's real world opinions, since they've been there, done that. I would love to be able to afford a c300. If it's good enough for p. bloom's pro work, that's a pretty strong recommendation.
Click to expand...
Like these?
Bball cap 1.jpg
Bball cap 2.jpg
Bball cap 3.jpg
Bball cap 4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Smells like a lot of confirmation bias going on to me.

Embrace the AVCHD...it's really impressive on the Canon.
 
As my name keeps popping up I want to clarify what Ive said.

After the C300 recent firmware update the canon log on the C300 and the C100 should match better than prior to that update. Its also my understanding that when the C100 was released it had a slightly improved mapping of canon log over the C300, so that was rectified.

My other point was simply opinion that stated: For my money I'd choose the C300 over the C100, but why wouldnt I? I have a C300 right here and in addition the EVF is worlds apart from the C100's. If youre talking shooting the C100 straight to AVCHD then to me thats a fair loss over the C300. To be completely honest Ive shot a lot of footage straight to MXF on the C300 and its been pretty good, but I see a lot of talk about the C100 needing a Ninja2 to come to the same class - so Im going to do some side by sides of the C300 to MXF and to Prores Hq via HD SDI on the Ninja2 as I wouldn't be surprised entirely if theres some increase in performance there as well over long gop 4:2:2 and if so I can expect to add one to the shopping list.

AVCHD also is a s*%teload more efficient than older codecs. I was able to get good shots out of the AF100 to AVCHD and that sensor doesnt have anything on the EOS C sensor.

Remember this is a 8.9 MP sensor for 4K acquisition on the C500 and overlays a Full 1080 R+G+B+G (thats full 1080 for every channel), to create a final 1080 image. Where Im concerned on the AVCHD is that it needs to drop a little too much of that to fully realise that potential and I suspect that the MXF 4:2:2 is at the minimum to maximise that return. I think thats fairly well recognised by most due to the number of C100 users I see with the Ninja 2 attached.

If you have a C100 and no ninja2, dont be perturbed by what Ive said here. The camera is still very capable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top