C100: C100 mk2 & C100 film look

T

tom1

Well-known member
I have c100 and I love it . I am consider to get c100mk2 . I am watching sample on vimeo , you tube and maybe something is wrong with me , but I am thinking that c100 gives more filmic look . I am not talking about colour science , just film look . They are both great camera , but C100 seems to give more film look . Please share here what you think about it . I know some of you have both camera , and I know mk2 is much better all around . Just focus on film look , please .
 
the idea of "film look" is completely ridiculous. every movies is different, so what's a "film look" ?

if you want good looking footage, no matter which camera : learn about composition and lighting.
and get good glass.
 
coutard said:
the idea of "film look" is completely ridiculous. every movies is different, so what's a "film look" ?

if you want good looking footage, no matter which camera : learn about composition and lighting.
and get good glass.
Click to expand...

It isn't ridiculous, he is noticing something very basic and very real. He aint talkin bout all that other stuff, just what comes out of the camera. I noticed it too!
 
Michael Thames said:
It isn't ridiculous, he is noticing something very basic and very real. He aint talkin bout all that other stuff, just what comes out of the camera. I noticed it too!
Click to expand...

that's what I'm saying. there's no such thing as a "film look", straight out of the camera.

"Fargo", "Gattaca", "The Grand Budapest Hotel" and "Sicario" are all great movies but the look of those movies are completely different, so how would you qualify a common "film look" between them ?
 
I think there is merit in the OP's question. I know if I have a scene set out and have the lighting looking good, the same shot looks more 'filmic' to me on a bmpcc than a gh4 for example. So maybe it could also be different between the old and new c100 ?
 
im sure he meant the qualities we've been talking about forever that we like about film...skin handling, dynamic range, sharpeness without looking "sharpened", the "organic" quality of celluloid vs sterility associated with video, etc.
 
While they both downscale from a 4K sensor, the MKII seems to do it more effectively. It is significantly sharper and more detailed than my GH4 downscaled to 1080P. And as coutard points out, it is also definitely colder by default (i.e. in the world of Canon, more neutral).

If one doesn't like this 'modern' look, it is easy to turn down sharpening and warm up the colour balance.
 
All of you are right . Every camera gives own film look . I like c100 , remind me old movies 70's . There is no one right camera for all job , the same with the rest equipment . However I would like to find out how much different mk2 gives film look . What you think , taste when you look at 2 footage . I know mk2 is colder , sharper ,what else ....
 
It's just easier to add "film emulation" processing in post.


And don't forget to upres to faux 4K.
 
I'm C100mk2 owner and also had C100. Yes I feel look from C100mk2 is something digital than C100. C100mk2 is too sharp so I lowered sharpening but still I feel edge of subject is very strange. I can't make it better even I use strong soft filter. And Skin tone is really not good. C100 has far better skin tone than mk2. I feel C100mk2 coming like a sony look.
The one reason of why C100 has film look than mk2 is, C100 has organic grain. But maybe it's not only one reason for it. I used C100mk2 more than 1 year and now I'm thinking sell and buy original C100 seriously. And also I feel color from C100mk2 is not good. C100 is much better.
 
are you sure? that just seems like it shouldnt be true. cant the newer cam be matched to the old through picture profiles?
 
Yeah I feel the same thing with the canon C300 ii and the c300. I own a C100, did not upgrade to the c100 ii yet either.
 
In 50 years from now we'll be shooting 16K or whatever, images will be crystal clear on our 16K displays, and the "film look" will be considered a vintage look that is only used in rare circumstances to emulate a look of older times. Consider the photography world, which is still ahead of the video world, where photos have mostly moved to digital, and most photography does not try to turn their digital photos into a "film look."
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Well I'll be 79 by then, so I have a decent chance of making it.
Click to expand...
Some of us will be in triple digits in fifty years. To be of solid health and of sound mind at that age - with a bit of other fortunes thrown in for good measure - and be shooting anything (for business or pleasure) would indeed be a blessing from above.
 
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the "film look" as what it really means is the "ethereal suspension of disbelief look" and that is one of the foundations of story telling. Showing NFL or the Olympics on TV? 8k 120p super deep depth of field 3D that s%$#!!! Make it as real as possible and I don't think anyone will complain. If you want to tell a good story and get your viewer immersed in it, then you'd be better off making it as "filmic" as possible.
 
It seems the higher the resolution the less "film look". Thus the reason I bought a C100 over the GH4 at the time everyone jumped ship. On many levels I like the 5d3 look better than some of the higher resolution cameras as well.
 
isnt 35mm still higher/as high res as the 4k? yet still manages to retain the look? i would think sharpening circuit is to blame?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top