C300: C300 Mark2 - High level of noise

olivier_s

olivier_s

Member

Hi Everyone,

I am new to the forum so I’ll introduce myself briefly. I am a freelance cameraman, based in Paris. I have been filming with the Canon C300 for the past few years and am a big fan of the camera. I have just picked up a brand new C300 MkII and I am getting a terrible high level of noise, even at 800 ISO. I went to CPS in Europe (France) and their technician agreed the footage is getting too much noise but just blamed it on using Wide DR Gamma. They asked me to do more tests which I have done... and I am still getting terrible noise on the image. Does anyone had any similar issues?


I have attached a photo from a clip shot at 1000 ISO with a 70/200.

Mark2_test_iso.jpg

Camera setup
1920x1080
25.00P
160Mbps
YCC422 10bit

Preset: BT.709
Gamma: Wide DR
Color Space: BT.709 Gamut
Color Matrix: Neutral
 
Hello Olivier, welcome to the forum. I also came from the mk1. If you haven't already, be sure to black balance the camera after it's been on for a few minutes.

I've read that the new 0db setting for the mk2 is actually 400ISO. WIDE DR profile has always dug deep into the shadows and thus revealed more noise than most color profiles. The issue shows up significantly in LOG2 as well. I've been exposing more to the right with this camera when I'm shooting in those gamma settings and pulling down the blacks in post. Of course tricky when you're delivering ready to air footage. I'm still experimenting with different profiles to find the best combination.

However, I've taken the new LOG1 up to 5000ISO with pleasant results after grading.
 
Hello John,

Many thanks for your reply! Have you done some test using the BT.709 preset? Black Balance done... I have experimented a few different CPs setting and the noise is still bad. Very worrying if I can't get a decent picture out of the box, without grading...


I have found the following infos online...

In a document that Canon officially sent out to the marketplace on the topic of dynamic range Canon writes:

“Canon recognizes that some of our customers are commenting about the image quality results after shooting the Canon C300 Mark II with the new Canon Log 2 Gamma setting.
Canon Log 2 Gamma is designed to provide as much usable data and dynamic range as possible for professionals to make use of in post-production. Because of this, it is possible under certain shooting environments that there can be the appearance of increased noise in low-light areas and/or luminance banding. These two artifacts are intrinsic to the design of the CMOS sensor. To make a fair assessment of Canon Log 2 Gamma the image should not be judged by viewing the log output alone, but rather the final graded image. (…)”
In order to reduce the noise mentioned above Canon further recommends users should:
  • “Set camera ISO to 400.”
  • “Set the cameras internal noise reduction filter to 2.”
  • “Utilize the original Canon Log Gamma (To minimize Luminance Banding).”
Canon later says that the base sensitivity for Canon Log is ISO 400, while the base sensitivity for Canon Log 2 is ISO 800.


 
I think we should stop thinking of using the Base ISO on Canon EOS cameras as the defacto standard for every scene that we shoot. The camera actually truly shines when you use the lowest possible ISO (ISO 100). The lower amount of gain/iso you use the more information you have in your shadows. Link to chart here: http://blog.wtsbroadcast.com/media/92159/canonc300markiic-log2schematic1.jpg

For example:

If you shoot the same scene twice in RAW, once at ISO 100 & the other at ISO 800, expose for your highlights in both takes, then bring in your footage and grade them up to the same point you'll find ISO100 takes the cake of being the lower noise image.
 
Hello Olivier,
The C300 Mark II has many options and need extensive testing so that you can find what works for you. The Wide DR would be noisy than the c-log. You would need to set noise reduction in camera by going to the menu. You have to check how much noise reduction you are comfortable with. While in the studio I briefly checked the higher noise reduction settings at around 7 and saw that it doesn't make the image soft. But never tested in the field, as I am primarily a c-log shooter.

Like you I have been using the original C300. For my style of shooting the C-log is the best bet in the original C300. Never used any other profile. So I mainly compared the c-log 1 of the C300 Mark II with the C-log of the C300. I didn't publish the indoor tests as I felt the grains of C300 II are great in good lighting conditions and also because I don't get completely lit scenes like a TV studio in the field. Rather I posted the lightly graded low light shots without noise reduction. Please check the linked video review from 2.39 to 3.12 for the low light shots, if you haven't seen it already.


In the low light shots with C300 Mark II, shot between 12800, 20000 and 25600, in c-log 1, I found it is better to shoot keeping your final output in mind so that you don't push and pull in post. When you start grading in post in these extreme high ISOs, you get noise. I tried neat video and found that the shots clean up nicely. However, I didn't show it in the review and only posted the shots with original noise so that people can know.

While shooting the low light shots for the above video review, a pack of 10 dogs howled and ran towards me. They quickly surrounded me. I was unarmed and would have been ripped apart if I didn't knew animal behaviour..... With no lights, I even shot the dogs at 25600 at T1.5 and even those came out well in noise reduction. Some time later, I will post a second part on noise reduction and will include those. Currently busy editing a documentary so not able to do it.

Hope this comment is of any use to you.

Best,
Sabyasachi
 
Thanks to all for your replies...

I did more noise tests shooting C-log, BT709 Preset, CPs... the footage is still just unusable... Let’s speak frankly, the footage is just terribly crap. At the moment is just 18k in the bin and Canon is fooling me around... Adding to the noise, the picture is also very soft.
 
We're having very different results. I'm finding the LOG1 and 709 presets extraordinarily clean. Remarkably so. The camera is also extremely sharp, if you're having softness issues it's a lens issue.

I did a shoot last week mixing in my cine zoom 30-105mm and a canon 16-35mm 2.8II. All the cine zoom stuff is clean and sharp. The L-Zoom however looked great on our onset Flanders 2k monitor, but on my 5k retina screen looked completely out of focus by comparison. Looking into it I realized that on my computer screen I was blowing up a 2k image to 4k. Adding a 10-20% sharpness helped the percieved softness.
 
olivier_s said:
Thanks to all for your replies...

I did more noise tests shooting C-log, BT709 Preset, CPs... the footage is still just unusable... Let’s speak frankly, the footage is just terribly crap. At the moment is just 18k in the bin and Canon is fooling me around... Adding to the noise, the picture is also very soft.
Click to expand...

If your picture from the C300MKII is soft it is either lens, operator or there is a major defect with your camera. I have been using the camera for months and the depth and detail of the image produced still blows me away. Soft it aint.
 
Not the operator (thanks ;)), not the lenses... all fine with the Mark1. The camera has definitely issues. I sent the camera to CPS France and after a week or supposedly verification, the technician invited me to his workshop, played my footage front of me on a monitor and told me... "they sharp enough for me but yes, there is a lot of noise.. please do more tests with your camera". Those guys are just a joke! I am actually pretty desperate and Canon over here seems to play me for a complete fool. We did some tests to my camera dealer and they found the softness on the footage very cinematic?!?!?!?! I'm just left with starting a legal action...
 
Last edited:
Curious. What lenses are you using? Can you post some footage or screen grabs. I'm rocking promist on all my narrative shoots now to take the sharp edge off.
 
I have been testing the camera with the 70-200 2.8f and the 24-105... I am going to upload screens shots...
 
Re the first grab - if you shoot at 1000 ISO in daylight I think you can expect noise. How about lowering the ISO and still controlling your depth of field using the ND's if you need to? Might yield better results.

I just knocked off this grab using the same shooting set up, Wide DR, BT709, Neutral. Not sure noise is overwhelming?

Also, if you use the screen grab function on the Canon utility software, might give us a better image to study.

i wouldn't use the slo mo as an example as people have reported issues with this, although I feel that's somewhat overstated too.A007C044_1602014T_CANON_00390113.jpg
 
Last edited:
I agree with you, using slow-mo for a test it is not best but in the end of the day, when you look at the footage... it is beyond whatever you can expect form a 18k camera. In daylight at 1000, the noise should not be that bad. I never had any issue with the Mark1.

Thanks a lot for sending me the grab with the same setting. Your shot is actually looking much better than mine. Not mentioning I can't get a sharp image... only soft. If at 800ISO, that's the best I can get in daylight with the Mark2, that is just a tragedy.
 

Attachments

  • Mark2_test_iso.jpg
    Mark2_test_iso.jpg
    31.8 KB · Views: 0
Ok, so the difference being in my shot the ISO was set at 400. I always aim to keep it as low as poss depending on the amount of light, applying the same rules as you would to film stocks. Low light, faster stock, higher ISO more grain (noise).More light, slower stock, lower ISO, less grain etc. Also, I think we can assume they're 2 very different cameras, the mark 1 n 2! Try it. Good luck.
 
Again I agree with you... and I always aim, like you, to keep the ISO as low as possible but seriously in that case, at only 800 ISO... Am I the only one finding the quality of that shot unacceptable for a camera of that caliber?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top