C100: C100 - Noise above 850 ISO

A

analog_addict

Well-known member
I've been shooting a lot of project recently where there is little available light, and the scenes can't be lit. One such project is a property show for broadcast. I've been shooting interiors with my Tamron 17-50mm at F2.8 using ISO up to 4000. Now looking at the footage it is extremely noisy. I presumed the C100 would perform well at 3200, I knew 4000 was a bit of a push.

What I'm wondering: 1. Is the noise shown on my screenshots normal at those ISO? 2. What is the max ISO I should be using?

Shot 1. 4000 ISO. Severe noise across the entire scene. It looks far worse in motion.

vlcsnap_2015_09_29_23h19m50s218.jpg



Shot 2. This is probably worse since from what I remember, the ISO wasn't very high at all. Possibly around 1600. 2500 max. Noise in the shadows.

vlcsnap_2015_09_29_23h27m42s783.jpg
 
In my experience WDR is the worst for higher-ISO shooting. For lower light shooting, I use a modified CINE1-based profile, noise reduction at 3, and superwhites either pressed or clipped at 100%.

Do you have a mkI or mkII? The mkII is slightly lower noise than the mkI. Here's a test I did with the stock CINE1 profile at high ISO's: https://vimeo.com/bobdrummond/review/123206702/9531a79239

Also, I might add, the noise in those images don't look all THAT bad to me. Have you tried watching this footage on an actual HDTV, rather than your monitor which might be too close and too bright?
 
drummondb said:
In my experience WDR is the worst for higher-ISO shooting. For lower light shooting, I use a modified CINE1-based profile, noise reduction at 3, and superwhites either pressed or clipped at 100%.

Do you have a mkI or mkII? The mkII is slightly lower noise than the mkI. Here's a test I did with the stock CINE1 profile at high ISO's: https://vimeo.com/bobdrummond/review/123206702/9531a79239

Also, I might add, the noise in those images don't look all THAT bad to me. Have you tried watching this footage on an actual HDTV, rather than your monitor which might be too close and too bright?
Click to expand...

I think possibly, I have overlooked the importance of picture profiles after spending too much time shooting on DSLR and Blackmagic raw. I have created the NBsmooth profile from: http://www.nathanblairfilm.com/canon-c100-color-profiles

A quick test at ISO 4000 shows a much cleaner image. The profile does set the noise reduction to 5.
 
Last edited:
I agree, the screen caps don't look bad at all to my eye. I think people get used to the antiseptically clean VIDEO looking video in Sonys and a few other cameras and expect that all cameras should be totally grain free. The C100 has noise and grain in the image above ISO 850, true, but the noise is very filmic and pleasant to most. I just cut a doc for an NGO with footage shot by very unskilled camera ops in Afghanistan. Some of the footage shot indoors with little light was pretty but VERY grainy. I was worried about it and was going to process it to reduce the noise. Until three different people that I screened the cut for all told me that they liked the grainy footage because it looked "more real" than my slick, well lit interview that I also cut into the piece. So bottom line, my footage was shot at ISO 850, correctly lit and exposed but three different people liked the super grainy, basically underexposed footage better. Too many of us get too into the techno-nerd specs and "perfectly clean, grain-free" images and forget the filmmaking part of the equation. If a noisy shot moves the viewer, it is "better" than your noise and grain free shots are not moving for various reasons.

If it is of that much concern to you, Neat Video NR plug ins are $99.00 and work great. I try to avoid ever going above ISO 2500 personally but if you have to get a shot and it is underexposed, I would rather grain it up and expose correctly than underexpose. Also, do you have some fast lenses? A few F1.4 primes can really help you out in a lot of these situations too.
 
I second drummondb, those two profiles have been great for me, just getting my legs with this camera. I think the key of course is to have a few different profiles and get good at switching between them. WDR is loved by a lot of people but so far I've found that it produces, for most of the stuff I do, one of the worst images. In some situations it can be great but in general it looks a little too far pushed for me. NTtc1Nc with noise reduction around 5 (I haven't seen a real clarity drop by even 6 on this profile) works really well in a lot of situations that need a higher ISO. And then yeah, neatvideo can be your friend too :)
 
Yeah...I did a shoot a few weeks ago in about the same conditions as you but even darker. Did use the WDR settings ae 3200 and 6400 iso. What a mess!
Did a quick test with with the profile NTtc1c (mentioned above) and it's vey much cleaner. Will stick with Wide DR or PF (Paul Frederick's version of Wide DR) for outdoor shot or well lit scene. Otherwise, will continue to test the Ntc1c profile.
 
Shot a half day today using NTtc1c. Wow. What a difference, I regret not doing this sooner. Shot a test at 4000 ISO and compared to WDR it's amazing.

Phew! The colours are nicer as well.

Doug, why would you choose WDR for exterior shots or lit scenes over NTtc1c?
 
analog_addict said:


Doug, why would you choose WDR for exterior shots or lit scenes over NTtc1c?
Click to expand...
Maybe I will go for the NTtc1c profile for outdoor shots (didn't use it outdoors yet). But frankly, WDR always gave me great results in those conditions...just have to test it more before I switch.
 
Did a very very quick test shooting through my office window and did not like what a saw from the NTtc1c profile. Looked a lot like the footage from a DSLR...very contrasty et saturated. I tried Wide DR and Wide PF as well. The best (to my eye) was the Wide PF profile.
 
I only use the NTtc1Nc and NTtc1c profiles when I NEED to (high ISO shooting). It generally looks a bit drabber straight out of the camera.
 
drummondb said:
I only use the NTtc1Nc and NTtc1c profiles when I NEED to (high ISO shooting). It generally looks a bit drabber straight out of the camera.
Click to expand...
Yeah...will stick with Wide DR when my ISO is below 1600. Feels like Ntc1c will reduce post time compared to using Wide DR in high ISO situations. Otherwise, WDR (or PF) all the way!
 
WidePF always gave me bad colors. Reds did not look red, and if you compared the colors to a still shot from my 6D it looked like a whole other universe, while the 6D was a pretty faithful replication of what we saw.

WideDR is a little noisy, but it never looks too bad. I use it at 3200 when I need to without complaint. 640 or lower looks best to me. I don't think your stills look particularly noisy given what you're doing either...
 
Strange, from my tests NTtc1c looks less contrasty and saturated than WDR. WDR looks more like DSLR footage to me. It appears I can push NTtc1c more than WDR.

Importantly how does dynamic range compare between WDR and NTtc1c?
 
I've found WDR to be more contrasty as well (not always bad). As for dynamic range, NTtc1c seems better from my limited tests, though in part this is due to it's similarity to the cinema color profile that crushes the highlights and pulls the blacks, which can cause issues (as is with almost any profile) if not exposed correctly. I find that, in general, in simple post color correction I can get more highlights and shadow details out of NTtc1c. But I think it really just depends on what you're shooting and for what look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top