C100: C100 MKII Test

Pave1 said:
Here is my own test of the C100 M2:
http://vimeo.com/114082503
Click to expand...

I might get shot down for saying this, but, to me the C100 M2 looks more like video kinda electronic and has a less film look.

Yes it has much less noise, but the detail seems so crisp it feels so real. Good for wildlife documentaries and others etc but doesn't seem to have as much of the surreal world look of film.
 
BeeHop said:
I might get shot down for saying this, but, to me the C100 M2 looks more like video kinda electronic and has a less film look.

Yes it has much less noise, but the detail seems so crisp it feels so real. Good for wildlife documentaries and others etc but doesn't seem to have as much of the surreal world look of film.
Click to expand...

Are you saying more videoish than the C100 m1, or videoish in general? Those were my thoughts about the GH4. Maybe because they both have 4K sensors, maybe 4K is more videoish. FilmConvert in that case. I don't see the videoish quality you speak of with the C100, in fact I've heard it described as the opposite, but, everyone sees things differently.
 
Just shoot Canon Log and you'll be fine. The Log profile is key for a more cinematic look. It completely changes how light is distributed in the image.

Apart from that, 4k can really help with the film look, but that's not an option with a C100 mkII. It will be with a C300 mkII though.

4k helps in that the image can resolve so much detail by sheer resolution, that it isn't necessary to sharpen it in post. A well resolved, non-sharpend (no halos), creamy log file is the key to beautiful footage. You can add some grain to taste. It can actually help, even if I personally think that 100% in Filmconvert is too much. 50% goes a long way. But for the grain to be effective I feel the underlying image needs to resolve fine detail in itself. Otherwise it just becomes clunky.

Many of the 4k videos popping up from cheaper cameras have been sharpened to a fault. People tend to want to "show off" the "detail". Not the way to go in my opinion.
 
BeeHop said:
I might get shot down for saying this, but, to me the C100 M2 looks more like video kinda electronic and has a less film look.

Yes it has much less noise, but the detail seems so crisp it feels so real. Good for wildlife documentaries and others etc but doesn't seem to have as much of the surreal world look of film.
Click to expand...

I was interested in DIGIC DV4 processing because I know that G30 has the same processor and I saw a lot of "red" videos from this camera.
The best part for this is "calendar shots" where is clear daylight and good lens canon 50mm/f1.4 with F2.8. There is visible the difference in colors, M2 is cold, also face color test show some "pink" colors in face, but there was tungsten light.

Luma resolution seems to be a little better on M2 but my feeling is that color resolution (on surfaces not on edges) is worse then M1 has. Again face color test show this, but I have only feeling and I must wait for more footages from M2.

Very nice on M2 is EVF with autofocus (or push focus), camera has a nice ergonomy and stability with EVF, quick focusing and ND ready - a very nice combination. I also like much better buttons, it is much easier to go to menus, it is quick work, M1 is worse and slowly.

Denoiser is better on M2, wdr and log gammas are without blue noise at deep black, but on TV this is not much visible.

Surprise were black levels - M2 has with the same setting less black, I don't know if it is better or not right now, I will see.
Also saturation gradients seem to be more smooth, but color on faces looks a little averaged for me.

The result is 50:50, some features are better, some seem to be worse, but one test is not enough for this conclusion.
OLED LCD is nice for focusing but worse for color setting (with kelvin), EVF has poor black due to reflection light, even +100 contrast has no effect. It would be interesting to see other tests, the first impression is nice but there are differences at colors against M1.
 
Michael Thames said:
Are you saying more videoish than the C100 m1, or videoish in general? Those were my thoughts about the GH4. Maybe because they both have 4K sensors, maybe 4K is more videoish. FilmConvert in that case. I don't see the videoish quality you speak of with the C100, in fact I've heard it described as the opposite, but, everyone sees things differently.
Click to expand...

Michael, to me, only judging by Pave1's test http://vimeo.com/114082503 i find the C100MkII more videoish yes. More sharper / detail (not noise but detail) its less cinematic. But thats just my own personal taste.

If i was to use the MkII i would lower sharpness to -10 and definitely shoot log.

Maybe i'm old school but i even don't like these new 2K TV's that are so sharp and have so much detail that when you walk into a shop you hear people say "WOW Oh My God look how real that looks!" - something i want to stay away from is 'real' unless its sports or wildlife.
 
Yes definitely clients especially corporate ones love that pristine and sharp look.

But for me i feel documentaries which mostly are 'real' can have a cinematic quality to it like a drama. Especially ones aimed at film festivals and tv networks.

'real, pristine and sharp' i should be saved for reality programs / corporate etc.

Sorry now I'm just imposing my own personal tastes here :happy:
 
BeeHop said:
Yes definitely clients especially corporate ones love that pristine and sharp look.

But for me i feel documentaries which mostly are 'real' can have a cinematic quality to it like a drama. Especially ones aimed at film festivals and tv networks.

'real, pristine and sharp' i should be saved for reality programs / corporate etc.

Sorry now I'm just imposing my own personal tastes here :happy:
Click to expand...

I like hearing about peoples tastes. I just got the C100 about two months ago, but I've been lusting for one for quite a while before that.... I've watched tons of comparisons on YouTube and Vimeo it never struck me that the C100 footage was videoish and I was pretty sensitive to it, as it came down to a decision between the GH4 and the C100. The Gh4 without doubt had a videoish look to it and was the main reason I got the C100 instead.

I'm not a colorist, but I think you can make just about any camera look cinematic with lighting and grading.
 
Michael Thames said:
I like hearing about peoples tastes. I just got the C100 about two months ago, but I've been lusting for one for quite a while before that.... I've watched tons of comparisons on YouTube and Vimeo it never struck me that the C100 footage was videoish and I was pretty sensitive to it, as it came down to a decision between the GH4 and the C100. The Gh4 without doubt had a videoish look to it and was the main reason I got the C100 instead.

I'm not a colorist, but I think you can make just about any camera look cinematic with lighting and grading.
Click to expand...

Yes for sure.

But i was specifically talking about the C100 MkII having a videoish look to it. The previous C100 does looks cinematic, you made a good choice if you bought the C100.

I'm just not impressed by what Canon have done to the C100 MkII - the changes don't seem significant enough to jump ship and with its videoish high detail sharpness I'm happy to still own the original C100, which goes out to ProRes HQ and IS CINEMATIC. :thumbup:
 
The slight color shift might be caused by the new over sampling going on in the C100 mkII.

In the original C100, the 1080p signal was extracted from:


  • 1920x1080 Red photo sites (2MP)
  • 1920x1080 Green[SUP]1 [/SUP]photo sites (2MP)
  • 1920x1080 Green[SUP]2 [/SUP] photo sites (2MP)
  • 1920x1080 Blue photo sites (2MP)


In the C100 mkII, the RED, GREEN and BLUE lattices are each extracted and interpolated up to 4k (8MP), before being scaled down to a 1080p signal. The benefit would be a natural smoothing effect at the internal 4k resolution (still at uncompressed stage), getting rid of moiré and aliasing, and perhaps averaging the noise.

Once scaled down to 1080p you arrive at a very pristine image.

All of this would seem to generate a more filmic image to me, since moiré and aliasing is typical video artefacts. I wouldn't draw any hasty conclusions before trying it out myself.

Canon has gone on record to say "larger than expected improvements in image quality".
 
Yes, a little different colors (and black levels) is a basic result of my test, I will wait for another tests for confirmation.

C100 mark II has only two big signal changes - internal 4K debayering and new digic dv4 processor, one of them made this. I personaly don't think, that debayering can made this shift. Interesing is look for other videocameras with digic dv4, this can a little help. G30 is one of them and this camera tends to blue-red pictures.

We will see how to tweak C100 mark II for best result, but the same menu setting, iris, ND or gamma (etc.) don't make the same pictures as C100 mark I has.

/ G30 has digic dv4 - picture samples: /
 

Attachments

  • G30_colors2b.jpg
    G30_colors2b.jpg
    250.9 KB · Views: 0
  • G30_colors4b.jpg
    G30_colors4b.jpg
    279.2 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
and C100 M1 vs M2 picture samples (with the same color temperature in kelvin, lens exposure and all setting are the same) :
 

Attachments

  • 041b C100 M2 300mm.jpg
    041b C100 M2 300mm.jpg
    264.6 KB · Views: 0
  • 041b C100 M1 300mm.jpg
    041b C100 M1 300mm.jpg
    277.7 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top