C100: C100/Ninja 2 Nature film "Their Last Days"

P

Paul Frederick

Active member
Check out my latest nature video "Their Last Days". I see alot of C100 samples that are weddings and short films (which I love to watch), but not many nature videos so I thought I would share this one. All shot in the Adirondack Mt's of Upstate NY just this past month during the autumn season. I used the Ninja2 and the C100. Lenses were the Canon 24-105 F4, Tokina 11-16 F2.8 and the Tamron 18-270 Super zoom! That last one is probably what I used most. While not as sharp, I find the ability to go from wide angle to super telephoto without changing lenses a real plus. Its pretty sharp for video too, with a slight vignette at the widest end.

Thanks for checking it out.


http://vimeo.com/77931546
 
Thanks guys! For the timelapse, I just recorded for about 20 minutes, then sped it up in FCPX. Made some HUGE files on the Ninja so once I sped up the footage I then exported the sped up shots (ProRes) as new short :30 files and deleted the massive 20 minute long ProRes files.
 
I heard people having strange problems in th image with the c100 and ninja 2 combination...did you?
 
Inspiring work! Did you find the Ninja helped with colours having a 422 colour space? What C100 profile did you use?
 
My Custom Profile is based on Cowpunks as a base:
I created a custom profile called WIDE PF, listing only the changes below- here are the settings:
Gamma curve is L:5, M:8, H:5
Gamma: Wide DR
Black-Master Ped: -1
Knee ON: Slope: -15 Point:109
COLOR MATRIX (This is the biggy) WIDE DR Gain:+30, Phase: +3, R-G: -20, R-B: +11, G-R:-23, G-B: -14, B-R: -10, B-G: +1

As for the Ninja 2, yes, I find it shows alot of grain that isnt on the AVCHD files. I always roll on both so I can compare directly. The AVCHD recording must use some kind of NR, because the recordings are cleaner in the dark areas, but don't lose any detail. And I'm not just talking about when you underexpose, it seems to be stronger in the blue channel but not sure. In very detailed scenes like a distant hillside with lots of detailed foliage, the AVCHD starts to break down, the biggest challenge is blowing reeds in a swamp. It just blocks up but the Ninja recording, with way more bits, keeps it all very solid! The Ninja doesn't make the recording any sharper, where it really helps is in heavy motion or highly moving detailed scenes. So it's a love hate for me! I love the more robust recording, but the grain it adds (or should say-records from the HDMI as I don't think it is adding anything, the HDMI out is noisier) is a bummer.

Most of the Ninja comparison videos online have it wrong! They show a static scene and say "Look-very little difference" and they are right, it won't show a difference on a static scene. Add motion, like waves, moving water, blowing reeds and the AVCHD starts to block up due to not enough bits. I'll try and post a motion based comparison soon.
 
Paul Frederick said:
As for the Ninja 2, yes, I find it shows alot of grain that isnt on the AVCHD files. I always roll on both so I can compare directly. The AVCHD recording must use some kind of NR, because the recordings are cleaner in the dark areas, but don't lose any detail. And I'm not just talking about when you underexpose, it seems to be stronger in the blue channel but not sure. In very detailed scenes like a distant hillside with lots of detailed foliage, the AVCHD starts to break down, the biggest challenge is blowing reeds in a swamp. It just blocks up but the Ninja recording, with way more bits, keeps it all very solid! The Ninja doesn't make the recording any sharper, where it really helps is in heavy motion or highly moving detailed scenes. So it's a love hate for me! I love the more robust recording, but the grain it adds (or should say-records from the HDMI as I don't think it is adding anything, the HDMI out is noisier) is a bummer.

Most of the Ninja comparison videos online have it wrong! They show a static scene and say "Look-very little difference" and they are right, it won't show a difference on a static scene. Add motion, like waves, moving water, blowing reeds and the AVCHD starts to block up due to not enough bits. I'll try and post a motion based comparison soon.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I found when I recorded to my Ninja 2 (now sold). It seems the HDMi signal out of the C100 contains "warts and all" and is unprocessed and as you say is noisier than the AVCHD codec. Again nice work!
 
interesting observation, I have not noticed more noise with Ninja.. but AVCHD works great so far, the video looks great!
 
Drew and Oleg,
It really seems worse on some shots then others. Can't put my finger on it yet as to why. Some interview shots that are well lit and exposed but that have large areas of dark in them (dark background of a well lit interview subject) are just crawling with grain, other times in shots that are overall evenly exposed show very little. Currently working on a PBS doc and I just may use the AVCHD clips in some of the interviews and transcode them to ProRes to get a cleaner looking shot instead of using the ProRes clips from the Ninja! Sounds weird but I think it'll look better in the long run. Still with areas of rapid motion the AVCHD codec breaks up too much and the Ninja is definitely needed.
 
Very nice work Paul.

But now I'm depressed. I thought a C100 & a Ninja2 were the equivalent of a C300 but you're shooting that down. I am a freelance shooter and usually have to pass off the media and don't know who edits. So if I understand you correctly, if I shoot with the in camera codec and fine lines are moving such as leaves I will get breakup? Yet if I use a Ninja 2 I will get noise? So in either case whomever receives the footage will have a complaint on either, correct? Eeeesh...

If I do the edit using a Ninja2 will Neat Video help? Have you tried that?

http://www.neatvideo.com

Thanks,
 
The Ninja bypasses the in-camera noise reduction.

As Paul said when doing static sit down interviews etc record in AVCHD the transcode to ProRes (preferably with 5DtoRGB). For other run and gun scenarios use the Ninja but throw a slight noise reduction filter on the Ninja file. (Neat Video is great) This adds time to the workflow which is very annoying but the best way when handing over files where you have no control.
 
Paul, have you tested your MATRIX settings on skin tones etc? I love using Wide DR over CLOG as i find it easier to focus and expose on the run.

Also just wondering if your tweaks to the Gamma curve could be adding more noise.
 
nedcam said:
Very nice work Paul.

But now I'm depressed. I thought a C100 & a Ninja2 were the equivalent of a C300 but you're shooting that down. I am a freelance shooter and usually have to pass off the media and don't know who edits. So if I understand you correctly, if I shoot with the in camera codec and fine lines are moving such as leaves I will get breakup? Yet if I use a Ninja 2 I will get noise? So in either case whomever receives the footage will have a complaint on either, correct? Eeeesh...

If I do the edit using a Ninja2 will Neat Video help? Have you tried that?

http://www.neatvideo.com

Thanks,
Click to expand...

Don't fret too much Ned. I'm pretty nit picky, but it is noticeable! I'm going to post a new video where I try and show the pros and cons of the Ninja 2 from a C100. I think there are very positive arguments on both side of the issue. It all comes down to when is the right time to use it. I'll get crackin on that tonight as I've been meaning to make one and will make a new post on this forum for it when it's uploaded.

Also, the AVC codec is pretty robust for 80-90% of all shots. Like I said its when there is so much going on in a frame that it runs out of bits and you will see blocking up. Its not just a detailed scene, its a detailed scene that is moving as well. I'm not sure how well this will all show up in compressed VIMEO video but I'll try and get something out there to show what I mean. It could be useful to others.
 
Last edited:
BeeHop said:
Paul, have you tested your MATRIX settings on skin tones etc? I love using Wide DR over CLOG as i find it easier to focus and expose on the run.

Also just wondering if your tweaks to the Gamma curve could be adding more noise.
Click to expand...

I have used it for 98% of all my shooting now and it looks good for flesh tones too. The Gamma curve may be adding to the noise, thats a very good point I will have to test out. Though I have seen it in C-log footage as well.
 
Here's a flesh tone example of my custom preset listed above. May be half a stop overexposed on this! But it's ungraded right out of the camera. This is also a frame grab from the NINJA 2 clip. Noise is subtle in BG in darker areas, easier to see when in motion.WIDE PF preset Sample.jpg
 
Last edited:
A few more grabs, ungraded right out of the camera. I feel this gets a good dynamic range and contrast without needing much if any post color work. Perfect setting to use all around if you have to hand off footage and can't control post. I feel the color is better then the stock WIDE DR as well, but thats just my opinion!WIDE PF preset Sample 2.jpgWIDE PF preset Sample 3.jpgWIDE PF preset Sample 4.jpg
 
Paul Frederick said:
A few more grabs, ungraded right out of the camera. I feel this gets a good dynamic range and contrast without needing much if any post color work. Perfect setting to use all around if you have to hand off footage and can't control post. I feel the color is better then the stock WIDE DR as well, but thats just my opinion!View attachment 77990View attachment 77991View attachment 77992
Click to expand...
wow! Those shots look great! What lens was on your C100 on these shots?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top