C200: C200/300 MKII shooters, what are your sharpness settings?

puredrifting

puredrifting

Major Contributor
I am reviewing some 2K proxies from a recent shoot and I was using face tracking for a stand up interview. In reviewing the proxies (have not had time to render out any of the RAW yet), the eyes and overall focus on the talent looks a little soft to me, these are C-Log 3. I know with the C100 and C300, we typically found -3 or -4 sharpness to be fine but what about the C200? Do the sharpness parameters get redefined in this camera? If the camera uses the same imager as the C300 MKII, what do most C300 MKII owners use for sharpness for clients who request a baked-in air ready look? Do you use 0 or do you go into + sharpening numbers? I hate the over sharpened look and I know it's best to sharpen in post but for those projects that cannot do it in post, what settings are you using on the C200 and or C300 MKII in the same situation?
 
Last edited:
I rarely do sharpening in post, so i find +5 to +10 to be fine. Like you i have found 0 to be a little soft. But i have not tested extensively on this matter. I have however been happy with my results after i started using +10 sharpness on my C300 mkII.
 
I posted a similar question earlier this year. I assumed I should automatically set sharpness to -10 on the C300/II like I always had on all C100's and the original C300. Sometimes it looks right, and sometimes I get crazy, waxy faces.

One poster in my original thread theorized that 0 sharpness on the C300/II may be the equivalent of -10 on the pre C300/II C-cameras. Here's that thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?352919-Sharpness-setting-on-the-C300-MKII

And here's the video I did where I think I was always at -10 sharpness on the C300/II. I was switching profiles around like crazy, so I'm unsure what the problem was. But sometimes faces definitely looked waxy. Check out especially the bride and groom's faces when she's coming down the aisle at about 1:40 : https://vimeo.com/user44952203/review/206245423/4cc1c01a36
 
I've noticed the C300 Mark II doesn't always seem to look sharper than the C100 Mark II, even when shooting in 4K. Maybe it's because the default (which I use) in-camera sharpness is turned down more.

I recall on the C100 when shooting in Canon Log, it was way less sharp than Wide DR (the default sharpness setting for Canon Log is also lower). Then you get to post, try to add sharpness to Canon Log, and I found it never looked as good sharpness wise as Wide DR, as you could only add so much sharpness in post before it destroys the image.

So in my experience, at least with 8 bit 4:2:0 footage, doing sharpness in-camera is better than doing it in post.
 
I had both the C200 and the C300 MKII up on the Small HD 1703 today. I played around with settings and have ended up at +2 sharpness on each. It appears the C300 MKII seems a bit sharper than the C200 both with +2 so I may up the C200 tomorrow to +3 or +4 to see how it looks since we begin the shoot tomorrow.
 
At work, we now have a C300 MKII and so far I like it but yeah the camera is much softer than I like. I don't really like having to sharpen every time I edit the footage. Glad I found this thread because I was a little surprised. Coming from a C300 I thought my Sigma 50-100 was having issues. It's not as noticable in full UHD but when you edit in a HD timeline and punch in it looks bad. I'll have to do some tweaking.
 
Erik Naso said:
At work, we now have a C300 MKII and so far I like it but yeah the camera is much softer than I like. I don't really like having to sharpen every time I edit the footage. Glad I found this thread because I was a little surprised. Coming from a C300 I thought my Sigma 50-100 was having issues. It's not as noticable in full UHD but when you edit in a HD timeline and punch in it looks bad. I'll have to do some tweaking.
Click to expand...

Let us know where you end up Eric. I am looking at some Cinema RAW Light I shot last night, first the 2K proxies, then the RAW. The proxies, at +2 sharpening, still seem a bit soft. Not sure if Cinema RAW Light has no sharpening applied at all, but the sharpening slider in the Cinema RAW Development software is grayed out so I can't experiment with it.
 
puredrifting said:
I had both the C200 and the C300 MKII up on the Small HD 1703 today. I played around with settings and have ended up at +2 sharpness on each. It appears the C300 MKII seems a bit sharper than the C200 both with +2 so I may up the C200 tomorrow to +3 or +4 to see how it looks since we begin the shoot tomorrow.
Click to expand...
How did you like the SmallHD 1703? I've been considering a larger SmallHD or a Flanders.
 
puredrifting said:
Let us know where you end up Eric. I am looking at some Cinema RAW Light I shot last night, first the 2K proxies, then the RAW. The proxies, at +2 sharpening, still seem a bit soft. Not sure if Cinema RAW Light has no sharpening applied at all, but the sharpening slider in the Cinema RAW Development software is grayed out so I can't experiment with it.
Click to expand...



I’m running +3 on my 300 Mk2 and I will say that this is totally arbitrary. I’m still looking for a way to make this decision about detail setting more grounded in some objective criteria other than it “looks good to me”.
 
puredrifting said:
Let us know where you end up Eric. I am looking at some Cinema RAW Light I shot last night, first the 2K proxies, then the RAW. The proxies, at +2 sharpening, still seem a bit soft. Not sure if Cinema RAW Light has no sharpening applied at all, but the sharpening slider in the Cinema RAW Development software is grayed out so I can't experiment with it.
Click to expand...

I wonder why it's grayed out? I just did my first Cinema Raw Light shoot the other day and could adjust the sharpness from 0-10 in the Raw Development software just fine.
 
Mark Smith said:
I’m running +3 on my 300 Mk2 and I will say that this is totally arbitrary. I’m still looking for a way to make this decision about detail setting more grounded in some objective criteria other than it “looks good to me”.
Click to expand...


I did a bit more poking around on the camera profile detail setting on the C300 Mk2. FWIW I wouldn't go above +5 as a general setting, obviously this is situational to a degree depending on what is in from of the camera. THere is always the option of adding a bit more sharpening in post if desired.
 
I did a few tests and found over +10 you get halo effect on borders of the objects. I would say no more than +10 in camera.

With that said I'm disappointed in the detail when shooting in UHD. The C300 MKII looks like it lacks resolution in UHD. In HD it looks very good. Strange. My workflow is to shoot in UHD and edit in a HD timeline so I can reframe when needed. If I punch in 100% the UHD image lacks detail. Even after sharpening in post with +0 setting in camera. I used the Sigma 50-100 and Canon 70-200 2.8 v2 for my tests. Not sure whats going on but I hope it's a settings issue because if this is how it looks i'm very dissapointed.
 
Erik Naso said:
I did a few tests and found over +10 you get halo effect on borders of the objects. I would say no more than +10 in camera.

With that said I'm disappointed in the detail when shooting in UHD. The C300 MKII looks like it lacks resolution in UHD. In HD it looks very good. Strange. My workflow is to shoot in UHD and edit in a HD timeline so I can reframe when needed. If I punch in 100% the UHD image lacks detail. Even after sharpening in post with +0 setting in camera. I used the Sigma 50-100 and Canon 70-200 2.8 v2 for my tests. Not sure whats going on but I hope it's a settings issue because if this is how it looks i'm very dissappointed.
Click to expand...

You know, come to think of it, I couldn't quite pinpoint what it was about the C300 MKII image I didn't like and I think you have nailed it, it wasn't quite as sharp when shooting 4K as I thought on some projects, even with same lens and settings setup, which is probably the reason why I fell in love with the C200 raw image, it was like night and day with image sharpness and clarity, and so it should be with "raw" and the fact that the sensor is 2 years newer etc.

The problem is, you can't shoot raw light on every project and I'm not sure if the 8bit MP4 is sharp enough either, but it's been working for me on certain projects just fine and since I've sold my C300 II, I haven't had much comment about inferior image quality compared to the C300 MKII.

I find the the MP4 image pretty damn good TBH and it's handy having both the raw and mp4 codecs internal for whatever suits the shots.
 
Last edited:
chris f said:
I wonder why it's grayed out? I just did my first Cinema Raw Light shoot the other day and could adjust the sharpness from 0-10 in the Raw Development software just fine.
Click to expand...

Figured it out. If you have Quick Development checked, the program doesn't allow you to access the sharpness slider. If you uncheck it, you can then set the sharpness to where you want it, then check the Quick Development box and the sharpness stays. I am liking +3 sharpness on the CRL I shot this morning in low light and at high ISO 5000.

Still not happy with the sharpness of the .MP4 files at +4. I may try +6 but that's making me nervous. I don't want Sony razor sharp look but not mush either. Just a happy medium.
 
I can't say enough how important the final export is. Seeing a half dozen c300mk1 films I shot on the big screen via DCP smashed my thoughts on resolution. I also just attended a screening of a feature doc shot at 1080 on both mk1/mk2 C300's, sitting about 15 feet away from a 10ft screen more than enough detail and clarity in both cameras.

If you haven't yet, Rob Yedlin released a really intriguing video talking about resolution and post workflows: https://ascmag.com/articles/a-clear-look-at-the-issue-of-resolution

I've been testing the C200 this week. Probably not a purchase for me, but I'm loving the detail/sharpness in the raw, I could see adding a touch of sharpness in post for a particular "look." Posted a few ISO/grading tests on my instagram (https://www.instagram.com/jmgardiner/).
 
I agree JM, I too have shot a decent amount of theatrical at 1080, it looks great if it's well shot and treated right in post. I still think 4K and up is more of a sales ploy than a true need, but I caved and bought the C200 and shoot a lot with rented C300 MKIIs.
 
Mark Smith said:
I did a bit more poking around on the camera profile detail setting on the C300 Mk2. FWIW I wouldn't go above +5 as a general setting, obviously this is situational to a degree depending on what is in from of the camera. THere is always the option of adding a bit more sharpening in post if desired.
Click to expand...

I just took a closer look at detail setting on the 300 Mk2. For my taste +2 to +4 is my limit.... I'm looking at the image on a 17" flanders which is not 4 k obviously, just the best thing I have here to use. I'm shooting a Putora sharpness chart and going by when I see detail increase amplifying artifacts in the chart. So +4 is where I would stop and FWIW the + range goes to 50 . I think It would be madness to go much higher than 5 - that's just me.
Having seen Mk 1 footage on the big screen with various projects I've shot and films that other people have made, I've never felt the image lacking in detail or detracting from the my viewing experience. The Mk2 has a better sensor than the Mk1 and is the same sensor as in the C200. Maybe the raw light codec is better at capturing the detail the sensor puts out than the XF avc codec and that could be the difference people claim to see.
For my money I'd keep the detail setting in the camera on the conservative side and if there is some boost needed, let that happen in post. Adding post detail can be more deliberate and subtle allowing better choices to be made than being under the gun in a field production setting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top