C300: C300 mkiii?

Gary T said:
I think this looks very promising, especially since it was apparently shot in XF-AVC and the only color correction was the standard FCPX LUT.
Click to expand...

Colors and skin tones look much better, but still something VERY video-y about it.
 
Grug said:
I have a feeling the C300iii might go down as one of the great S35mm cameras.
Click to expand...

I really hope so. I'm still seeing a shift towards red/yellow to warm up the overall image. It's harder to tell in the overcast lighting.

Also, doesn't the 4K/120FPS process the image differently? I don't think you can use the dual gain ISO in 120fps/4k.
 
Last edited:
Gary T said:
I think this looks very promising, especially since it was apparently shot in XF-AVC and the only color correction was the standard FCPX LUT.


Click to expand...

This looks nice but the lighting isn't pushing the DR of the sensor so I'd expect any camera to perform well under these conditions.
 
bill totolo said:
This looks nice but the lighting isn't pushing the DR of the sensor so I'd expect any camera to perform well under these conditions.
Click to expand...
Also, a lot of it is in Slomo. frame rates over 60fps are not dual gain HDR, if I remember correctly? So, slomo is likely still going to be "soft light" only. (or hard light with proper ratios, but same same.). That is not to say that the single gain capabilities of the sensor is lacking, as it is still packing some power.
 
KMarandi said:
Been scouring YouTube/Vimeo every day for new C300-3 footage (awaiting delivery on my unit). Found this on Vimeo... could be one of the nicer examples so far:

https://vimeo.com/434840204
Click to expand...

This looks more like Sony than it does Canon, which is strange. Maybe it is that style of grading you often see from Sony cameras to hide the sometimes bleak color pallet.

The video below shows potentially what the camera's more natural look is. I do still feel like the highlights have a more harsh look on the Mk3, maybe I am just imagining it. I would love to see a side by side with the Mk2 in 4k/24p

I am assuming most of my doubts are related to the post work flow pipeline.

https://vimeo.com/433446339
 
Ben_Ericson said:
I do still feel like the highlights have a more harsh look on the Mk3, maybe I am just imagining it.
Click to expand...

The highlights are harsher (at least in that video) because it's a baked BT.709 profile. DR is limited and highlights clip easily.

Some of the clips say 'no grade' so those would be straight out of the camera with no post.
 
NorBro said:
The highlights are harsher (at least in that video) because it's a baked BT.709 profile. DR is limited and highlights clip easily.

Some of the clips say 'no grade' so those would be straight out of the camera with no post.
Click to expand...

Well at least with BT.709 we know the user is not doing something to negatively effect the image in post. I just mean the highlights in general on the Mk3 seem more harsh. The examples I have seen lack the smooth, warm, and saturated images I am used to seeing from Canon.

Here is another sample video, comparing the image to the FX9. Judging my prior knowledge of the Sony and Canon look, I would assume he had the two cameras mixed up.

https://youtu.be/o9Y0eCcGHlk
 
IMO, Canon was always in last place with highlights in professional cinema cameras. They have no doubt improved from the awful C500's handling of them, but they are incremental updates. Each generation of camera appears to be only a little bit better than the last.

If you were to compare the C500 to the C300 Mark III (which had the C300 Mark II and the C200 between them), it would be probably a full, real stop of improvement, maybe a bit more. Which is very nice, but they are still behind other systems.

So going from 13 stops to 14 stops (conservative example) is awesome, but not so much when other cameras are going from 14 to 15. Or 15 to 16.

[And definitely not seeing anything warm and saturated either which is surprising.]

As far as the comparison video, it's fine - even though it's being done with ALEXA's LUT - but there's nothing there for the camera to struggle with.
 
Came across two new clips today. I can't shake this feeling about how with a lot of what I've seen so far, the handling of the highlights doesn't seem "Canon-y" or everyone's fave word, "cinematic." It's hard to explain, but highlights just feel harsher and more video-like on everything I've seen with the C300iii versus existing Canon c-series product. Maybe it's just overexposure and people still sorting out the sweet spot for the camera (I hope), or maybe it's a characteristic of this all-new sensor.

Anyways, here are the two videos I found today. With the first, it looks as if the sky was overcast, which at first glance you think it's just blown out in every shot with how it's washing out some of the edge detail on foreground subjects. The best shot IMO of this clip is the VERY last frame. Very nice aesthetic on the closeup of the female. Wish they held that a bit longer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHxLnio7coA

Second clip hit closer to the kind of footage I've been wanting to see. High dynamic range, crisp detail, etc. Well done test:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6xwNZ-1ujw
 
Last edited:
First clip looks like it was overexposed or poorly graded?

Second clip looks cool. Looks like it was shot with a polarizer?
 
Marko (one of his links is above) has been using the camera a bit...3 new videos on his channel (4 including the one above).

I think most people would find this to be a high-quality and pleasant "this is Canon footage" look:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_HkmHqeBO4

IMO, practically identical to the C200 but I think you can see a bit more IQ there.
 
Dammit I want that camera. This looks better than P6K to me. Crazy that he stepped up to it from an A7III
 
First of all, the C300III shoots 10-bit xfavc. The C200 has a sour reputation among some producers I know (even if it's just because they THINK it's a cheap camera). They hold the C300mk2 in higher regard.

2nd - it shoots framerates that the C200 does not

3rd - I'm not crazy about that C200 grade although the video looks nice. But it's impossible to make a direct comparison to evaluate DR etc without shooting side-by-side. I've seen some C200 stuff that looked great and some that looked like crap. Different shooters. At any rate, the AF is surely not as good as anything coming out now
 
lol. You'd definitely be that guy who pays $11,000 for a C300 Mark III only to realize its AF system doesn't perform the same way you're imagining it does like on the DSLRs/mirrorless cameras.
 
I was under the impression the AF had improved. But believe me, I would know more about it before actually making a purchase
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top