C100: C100ii 40,000 ISO TEST Crazy Noise

cpreston said:
Looks about right to me for the c100 mkI. I've never considered 8000 ISO to be clean. Very useable as far as I'm concerned, but not clean.
Click to expand...


I have had to use 8000 iso at weddings and events. Over the last many years, I have never seen the noise and color represented here. The fact that its in the upper right and has such a strong color cast is not normal. My C100 Mark I has noise at higher iso...but a little neat video and it cleans right up. That is not the case with the OP.
 
Here are some things about noise on the C100 I've picked up over the last few years:

Wide DR is the worst profile for high ISO usage. I've seen this inconsistent blue noise in Wide DR at high ISO's, at least on the several C100 Mk I cameras that I've used. Hell, I'd see it on ISO's in the 16000 to 20000 range on the MK I's before they added the extended ISO ranges. If your're going above ISO 3200 or 6400 or so, you probably want to switch to a different profile. I like CINE 1 for high ISO usage. I also increase the built-in noise reduction a few notches. Setting it to 2 or 3 will help a little. Others have said another way to reduce noise is to make sure your black level is actually at 0 on the waveform, and set the profile so it does not record superwhites (the whites above 100 IRE on the waveform). Others would say if your image is "underexposed" (whatever that exactly means) you will see more of the noise than if it is "properly" exposed. They would argue it's better to get the right exposure level you want in-camera, and deal with the noise removal in post. Better that than intentionally not going high enough on the ISO because you're afraid of the noise.

There has always been a lot of hype about how amazingly low-noise the cinema series is, especially when the C300 first launched. Many people, like me, thought we could turn on the camera and jack up the ISO to wherever we wanted. Many have since discovered it takes a bit of research and experimentation to get superior high ISO performance.

I think we also need to point out that none of us would recommend relying on 40,000 ISO for professional use. Sure, it's nice the high ISO's are there for an emergency. But just a little bit of planning should ensure you would not need to go near 40,000 ISO during a shoot.
 
Thanks for this. I agree I would never use a 40,000 ISO setting ever.
my discovery was simply running some tests and discovering this awful Bluecast everywhere. I did use various picture profiles and the problem still persists even lower ISO settings.

if the unit is indeed not defective, I guess it's a simple case of believing the hype and "shame on me" for not trying it before buying it. My FS700 was vastly superior in image quality compared to what I'm seeing here.
 
John Foundas said:
Thanks for this. I agree I would never use a 40,000 ISO setting ever.
my discovery was simply running some tests and discovering this awful Bluecast everywhere. I did use various picture profiles and the problem still persists even lower ISO settings.

if the unit is indeed not defective, I guess it's a simple case of believing the hype and "shame on me" for not trying it before buying it. My FS700 was vastly superior in image quality compared to what I'm seeing here.
Click to expand...

I think with a little time, research, and practice, you'll get images AT LEAST on par with the FS700. Many here would say you'll get images quite a bit nicer.
 
I second the importance of shooting in C-Log when going to anything above 3,200 really. The noise difference is huge.

I have not noticed any blue cast or difference in noise level from top to bottom on my C100 MK II though.
 
For what it's worth the folks at B & H are setting up an RMA for me and letting me exchange it for a different unit. Unfortunately it's in back order status (again).
The blue cast blocky noise in certain sections of the image is odd. The camera is not recognizing the AF face detection with my 18-135 SMT lens and the fan area has a very audible processing noise going on.
My gut says something is up with this unit. Glad BH was so helpful in this matter. Better safe than sorry...

Thanks for the comments
 
maybe it's just me.. but aperture shouldn't affect noise. Noise is generated by the sensor and at how sensitive you are running it via ISO. A faster lens just means you can let more light in and run it at a lower ISO. If you are comparing 40,000 ISO to 40,000 ISO then lens shouldn;t make that much of an impact.

White balance could also show more noise if you are balanced more blue. Maybe.

But.. we are talking about 40,000 ISO here. It's going to be noisy. I'd have to see this reference clip of clean 40,000 ISO and have it be proven what settings it was run at with no post work. The internet is fickle. and for what it's worth, I can;t stand to turn up ISO past 2,000 much less anything else. I understand it's needed at times but at 40,000 you are asking a lot to not have it look like garbage.
 
Last edited:
John Foundas said:
Heres another clip...https://vimeo.com/fdmvideo/review/123154986/d2be3fb9e9
Click to expand...


what's weird is that it's isolated to the top half, and mostly skewed to the right side of the frame. Yeah man I think a call to canon is in order.

By the by, b&h's "no return" policy doesn't apply to defective merchandise. I don't work for them or anything, but no one in the country is legally allowed to sell defective merchandise.

IF that's what's going on. Honestly I'd just call them and see if you can send it in, rather than waste more time troubleshooting. The noise itself looks about what I'd expect for 40k, but it being isolated to certain parts of the frame is strange.
 
Here's a very rough test I did of the ISO's using my modified CINE 1 profile on my MK2. Black levels are lowered so they're kissing zero IRE, and I've engaged the PRESS function so the video levels are limited to 100 IRE (no superwhites). Gama and color matrix are CINE 1, and noise reduction is set to 2.

I was using the sigma 18-35mm 1.8. I started at 1.8 and closed down to keep just a hint of 70% zebra on her face as I ramped up the ISO. It was 24p at 1/48 shutter. Download the original file if you'd like to inspect it. No grading in my NLE. It's the file right off the SD card.

ISO's above 20,000 seem usable to me. I have another test with the stock WIDE DR profile I'll try to dig up.


https://vimeo.com/123206702

Interesting to note, you can see the blue cast near the top of the frame in the thumbnail, but it isn't very visible during the video.
 
Last edited:
drummondb said:
Here's a very rough test I did of the ISO's using my modified CINE 1 profile on my MK2. Black levels are lowered so they're kissing zero IRE, and I've engaged the PRESS function so the video levels are limited to 100 IRE (no superwhites). Gama and color matrix are CINE 1, and noise reduction is set to 2.

I was using the sigma 18-35mm 1.8. I started at 1.8 and closed down to keep just a hint of 70% zebra on her face as I ramped up the ISO. It was 24p at 1/48 shutter. Download the original file if you'd like to inspect it. No grading in my NLE. It's the file right off the SD card.

ISO's above 20,000 seem usable to me. I have another test with the stock WIDE DR profile I'll try to dig up.


https://vimeo.com/123206702

Interesting to note, you can see the blue cast near the top of the frame in the thumbnail, but it isn't very visible during the video.
Click to expand...

TY for sharing this. That is the ISO/noise levels I would expect from this cam. Mine were cracking up at 8000 in a room that was probably better lit than yours. In the end, my camera is on a big brown truck on its way to the big apple. Hope a new unit will yield better results. I will keep the notes on blacks, press and nr for future use. Appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
AndreeOnline said:
You guys have one zero too many in those ISO settings...

I mean, WTF?
Click to expand...

Some outdoor activities like fishing?
Personally I like to continue shooting after sunset, especially the magic blue hour provides often an interesting look. 6-12ooo ISO is really helpful to lighten a bigger outdoor scene.

Regarding the noise, it might depending on the light source; a lot of unnatural emitters like LED have a really bad spectrum. Sometimes the blue channel gets very noisy just because there is no 'blue' light to capture. You might try to blur it selectively in post - just open a frame in PS and have a look if the noise come from one channel only.
 
AndreeOnline said:
You guys have one zero too many in those ISO settings...

I mean, WTF?
Click to expand...

I was merely conducting a test with a new camera. It was at that point I noticed some very odd behavior coming from the sensor. I don't think anyone is walking around shooting 40,000 iso for projects.
 
John Foundas said:
I was merely conducting a test with a new camera. It was at that point I noticed some very odd behavior coming from the sensor. I don't think anyone is walking around shooting 40,000 iso for projects.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean it to sound as critical as it perhaps came out in such a short post.

To be honest, I don't know why the manufacterers enable those high ISOs to start with. It's pretty gimmicky and best case scenario is that it looks good in a spec sheet.

Yes, there are types of cameras and areas of photography where you might want the picture, any picture, at any price, but I don't feel that the cinema series is one of those. As a documentary camera-sure, throw 12800 in there for the hell of it, but that's pretty much it. Of course, if we reach a point where ISO 40000 looks good-include it. We're not there yet.

Never expose for darkness. Expose for light. Even in dimly lit scenes with 6400 and fast glass... you go a long way. If the scene is dimly lit, reflected light won't hit IRE 100.
 
My philosophy is to just expose properly and with the required depth of field and fix noise in post. You lose a little resolution, but it's fine.

Based on my readings of those clips, the blue block noise is pretty standard under those circumstances. The fact that it was relegated to the upper area of the image seemed odd, but you will see the same general behavior on your replacement camera. Wide DR pulls up the blacks in a way that causes noise and compression artifacts even at relatively low ISO's. Also, since you seemed to be white balanced to either tungsten or sodium vapor lights, all of your noise is going to be in the blue channel.
 
Here in town, the general thought is 3200 ISO is clean, at 6400 ISO, the noise starts showing up but Canon made it's noise "move" so it looks more like film grain and you don't really get that "screen door" effect. Also, you can use the noise reduction to clean up the higher ISOs...but you really can only use up to 50%, after that it just softens the picture.

Jim Martin
 
I wonder which one is better in low light c100 or fs100 ? I am going jump from fs100 to c100 and I could not find any low light test side by side . Fs100 in low light is amazing , but I think 18db or 21db is max how far you can go . Did you see any test both of them , side by side ?
Never expose for darkness. Expose for light. Even in dimly lit scenes with 6400 and fast glass... you go a long way. If the scene is dimly lit, reflected light won't hit IRE 100.
Click to expand...
+1
 
AndreeOnline said:
Never expose for darkness. Expose for light. Even in dimly lit scenes with 6400 and fast glass... you go a long way. If the scene is dimly lit, reflected light won't hit IRE 100.
Click to expand...

Agreed, ISO6400 with an f/2.8 lens will shoot in pretty dim stuff. I used to photograph basketball for our college newspaper in a gym that could be gently-described as "a tomb" and I shot ISO 3200 film at shutter speeds close to 1/200th with an 80-200mm f/2.8.

I've never had an issue with my C100's noise... neither the mk1 or mk2. Looking at the videos, if everything is configured correctly (a big if), that looks defective.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top