35mm negative is. Once graded/developed, its max res is around 6-6.5 MPX or 3.2-3.5K, depending on the stock. IMO, that's why Alexa is of "film quality". Its open gate is 5.7 MPX and its DR is about 14 stops, both nearly identical to film (especially, when looking with the naked eye).
C100: C100 mk2 & C100 film look
- Thread starter tom1
- Start date
starcentral
Veteran
I directed a multi-cam live shoot with two C100 mkii and one C100 mki and I did the editing later and coloring, and there was nothing I'd call a major difference. I shot with CP8 profile on all of them and there was just a small difference between them and what it took to match them.
But overall colors, contrast, motion, sharpness were close or the same... really I didn't see anything that stood out?
Cheers,
But overall colors, contrast, motion, sharpness were close or the same... really I didn't see anything that stood out?
Cheers,
Shot on Alexa XT, which can do 3.2K Raw.
The rest depends on the theater. From what I can find on the web, about half of the US movie theaters are equipped with 4K projectors. AMC and Cinemark are pretty much all 4K. Other distributors vary. Most "main rooms" with 65 ft screens are 4K but many smaller rooms are still 2K.
indiawilds
Veteran
After 50 years, I will be pretty close to three digits. Couple of days back I saw people wear masks while jogging in the park. Virtually every other day there is news of a person younger to me getting cancer. Not sure if I will see 50 more years, then the world would be a pleasant place to live in. I am an optimist though. Nevertheless, I always pray that what ever number of days a person may live, each day of his/her life should be very pleasant and filled with joy.
I think in 2 years from now I and a lot of people will be shooting with a 8K camera without paying a hefty amount. While shooting wildlife and nature, I would like all the details. Whereas shooting people, I am sure about employing lot of soft focus lenses, filters, diffusion (or may be blankets) behind/infront of the lens.
IMO, 8K Cinema/ENG cams will be priced very steeply. The sensor that NHK is buying is 8K and 120 fps - great for the Olympics but must be very pricey.
On the other hand, Sony A7RII sensor is already 8K ... but, I bet the rolling shutter on it would be horrendous. Within a year or two, however, it may be no worse than what it is currently in its s35 4K mode. And priced similarly as well.
PS. And I have to nod my head on the rest. FWIW, I met Garry Shandling years ago when I still lived in LA. I was a big fan anyway. An old friend would also tell me that Garry was into healthy living, working out, Chinese herbs and so on. And then, boom, and he's gone at 66.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
Maybe we're reaching a saturation point in resolution. Look at photography. We have most cameras in the 12-25 megapixel range and have some really high res ones too, but most people are seeing those images in 900x900 pixel boxes. I think we're likely to see something similar in video over the next few years. High res acquisition with 4k and even some 8k but most playback will still be in HD with a smattering of 4k for special circumstances. We'll eventually see a shift to 4k TVs in most homes but that'll only happen over a number of years as HD sets wear out and are replaced. I just don't see the momentum that HD had where people were putting working SD TVs on the curb to make room for their new flat panel.
1) Photo res is kind of/sort of unlimited because one can zoom to any part of the image at will.
2) 4K sets are actually selling very well because, when there was a SD to HD transition at the turn of the millenium, it was simultaneous with the tube/rear projection transition to flat panels. In 2002, one could get a 55" HD-ready RPTV for about $2,000 but flat panels 720p 37" flat panels were $1,500 as late as 2006. These days, one can get a 40" off-brand 4K set for under $300 and brand names for a few hundred more.
PS. I just looked up Brandsmart's UHD TV page and they have a 40" Vidao (yes, Vidao ... whatever that is) for $199.
2) 4K sets are actually selling very well because, when there was a SD to HD transition at the turn of the millenium, it was simultaneous with the tube/rear projection transition to flat panels. In 2002, one could get a 55" HD-ready RPTV for about $2,000 but flat panels 720p 37" flat panels were $1,500 as late as 2006. These days, one can get a 40" off-brand 4K set for under $300 and brand names for a few hundred more.
PS. I just looked up Brandsmart's UHD TV page and they have a 40" Vidao (yes, Vidao ... whatever that is) for $199.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
...and that's how a lot of people are using their 4k footage. Shoot interview in 4k and crop/zoom in for close ups. Delivered in HD. No different than shooting 20 megapixel still and cropping to deliver a smaller, tighter photo.
4k sets are selling, but mainly as replacements for broken HD sets. Consumers aren't tossing out working HD sets just to get that sweet, sweet 4k upgrade. They're just at the store to buy a replacement and then wind up buying a 4k because they only then learn about it. Most people (not filmmakers or video nerds!) don't even know what 4k is. or care. But that doesn't mean that they won't wind up with a 4k set eventually. They will, but it will take a few years as everyone goes through the product replacement cycle.
Anyway... once everyone does upgrade to 4k, do you think that all the DPs shooting the big budget movies are going to switch to deep depth of field and super sharp focus on everything? Nope. Just like how that didn't happen when we went HD. Sports and news will see plenty of use for 4k resolution, but anything narrative is still going to go with a more selective focus and softer overall look.
Ok, I feel like we're off topic here. The OP's topic wasn't whether or not the "film look" is a thing, or weather 4K is enough or not, it was comparing the C100 mk I vs the C100 mk II.
I've had a C100 mkI for over a year now, and I both feel like I need a second cam that matches it better then my current b cam, a 60D, and also feel like I need 1080p 60fps. So I'm seriously considering a C100 mkII as an upgrade. I'm disheartened to hear that some of you feel that it has both a "sharper" look as well as a "blue tint" compared to the mkI. These are factors that I'm very sensitive to, and why I prefer Canon over Sonys (damn you fs5 and fs7), because I feel like Canon has a softer, more natural look, as well as a warmer look on skin tones. Can someone please confirm to me that this is not the case!!!
BTW, I definitely think there is a "film look", although I think it's more affected by lighting, lenses, and composition more then anything else. Getting anyone to agree on what make that "film look" is up for debate. Granted, a lot of people these days actually like and prefer an overly sharp, more digital look. One won't "replace" there other, it's a stylistic choice. A lot of times when people say "film look" they mean "how do I get an image that looks like what I see in the movies." Personally, I just got some results that I was VERY happy with by using mostly some vintage Nikkor lenses and the C100 mk I. I think the lenses softened up the image over all, and caught and diffused light nicely. Rather "filmic" in my opinion.
If your interested, here's a link to the rough cut edit (with sample music):
https://vimeo.com/161590497
I've had a C100 mkI for over a year now, and I both feel like I need a second cam that matches it better then my current b cam, a 60D, and also feel like I need 1080p 60fps. So I'm seriously considering a C100 mkII as an upgrade. I'm disheartened to hear that some of you feel that it has both a "sharper" look as well as a "blue tint" compared to the mkI. These are factors that I'm very sensitive to, and why I prefer Canon over Sonys (damn you fs5 and fs7), because I feel like Canon has a softer, more natural look, as well as a warmer look on skin tones. Can someone please confirm to me that this is not the case!!!
BTW, I definitely think there is a "film look", although I think it's more affected by lighting, lenses, and composition more then anything else. Getting anyone to agree on what make that "film look" is up for debate. Granted, a lot of people these days actually like and prefer an overly sharp, more digital look. One won't "replace" there other, it's a stylistic choice. A lot of times when people say "film look" they mean "how do I get an image that looks like what I see in the movies." Personally, I just got some results that I was VERY happy with by using mostly some vintage Nikkor lenses and the C100 mk I. I think the lenses softened up the image over all, and caught and diffused light nicely. Rather "filmic" in my opinion.
If your interested, here's a link to the rough cut edit (with sample music):
https://vimeo.com/161590497
The colour issue isn't really an issue. Skin tones remain great pretty much no matter what. Mark 2 is just more neutral than the Mark 1.You can use a custom MKii profile from AbelCine (here)or Shane Hurlbut for warmer looks. The sensor can produce classic Canon colour no problem with some minor matrix adjustments.
After more tests with sharpness, I suppose some people may have issues even with it turned down. The MKII really is a 4K cam trying to burst out of a HD cam's body (Canon really should have allowed it to record 4K externally). Diffusion filters are, of course, an easy fix.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
To me, a 5D3 has more of a natural out of the box "film look" than the C100, the C100 to my eye is noticeably sharper than the 5D3. I have both. As cameras go up the food chain they always get sharper like the digitalized look of the GH4. I remember when the C100 II came out and all the comparisons with the C100, I was more attached to the image of the C100 over the C100 II..... but it's splitting hairs, isn't it. I'm looking to get another C100, and will most likely get a new C100 MKI, because of the price.
I guess it really depends on what you shoot. I do mostly portrait kinda shots and I'm beginning to find the C100 with a 70-200 F2.8 II a bit too sharp. For that I kind a prefer the 5D3, but like the functionality of the C100.
I guess it really depends on what you shoot. I do mostly portrait kinda shots and I'm beginning to find the C100 with a 70-200 F2.8 II a bit too sharp. For that I kind a prefer the 5D3, but like the functionality of the C100.
Last edited:
The main difference between photo and video crop/zoom is that, in photo, a final consumer can zoom in and out of the image, whereas in video, it's more or less pro's domain.
In the sills world, there are already 100 MPX MF cameras and now there are even rumors that the A7RIII will make a jump from its current 42 MPX into the 60's, whenever it comes out. This also dovetails nicely into the upcoming slew of the professional 8K displays and projectors.
That's semantics. As someone who had worked in that biz a while, explaining the difference is very easy. Even if someone is unaware of the latest technology - and, indeed, most aren't - all they have to do is walk into a consumer electronics store, see a zillion 4K signs in the TV section and immediately decide that 4K is exactly what they want.
Besides, there are streaming (Sony, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube) and player (4K Blu-Ray) options already out there.
I doubt anyone will shoot a feature film in a super-soft 2K, just like there aren't m/any who shoot major features in 16mm. Off something like the "House of Cards" - which has a cinematic look with its cinematic director - the use of shallow depth is rather prominent but that doesn't mean that nothing is in focus.
Michael Thames
Carbonite Member
Works well indoors?
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
That's exactly my point. The consumer has to find out once they're at the store. It's the difference between "Oh I lost my phone and need a new one" and the lines outside the Apple store on launch day of the latest iPhone.
Anywaaaay, I don't think we're really disagreeing at all here. Resolution is there as another tool, but isn't really changing the style of the movies. That "cinema look" or "film look" is here to stay. The real question (to get back on topic) is if this resolution is creating an inorganic sharpness that is at odds with the film look.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
In Singin' in the Rain they didn't think talkies would become popular. Things change over time. It remains to be seen if the "film look" will still be popular in 50 years from now, or if it will be more of "vintage" look that is used on rare occasions. I'd guess the latter.