C300: C300mk2 real world footage and user reviews.

jm.gardiner said:
Here's a nice looking one.

https://vimeo.com/141754845
Click to expand...
Great find, looks great......and as for this "crop" discussion, with a 4K chip, why is "zooming in on the chip" any different from what has been RED's mantra over the last 4 years?..."shoot in 4K so you can move in and adjust the frame".....this footage looks very good and I don't see any issues......just sayin'

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
 
Jim Martin said:
Great find, looks great......and as for this "crop" discussion, with a 4K chip, why is "zooming in on the chip" any different from what has been RED's mantra over the last 4 years?..."shoot in 4K so you can move in and adjust the frame".....this footage looks very good and I don't see any issues......just sayin'
Click to expand...

Huge difference between cropping a 1080 frame out of acquired 4k footage and shooting an S35 50mm frame in 1080 that becomes a 100mm frame.

Remember, the 120fps is 1080 footage, not 4k. So you're losing resolution, DR and being forced to 2X crop. It is what it is, but that's not an accurate or relevant comparison.
 
traviswears said:
Huge difference between cropping a 1080 frame out of acquired 4k footage and shooting an S35 50mm frame in 1080 that becomes a 100mm frame.

Remember, the 120fps is 1080 footage, not 4k. So you're losing resolution, DR and being forced to 2X crop. It is what it is, but that's not an accurate or relevant comparison.
Click to expand...
I see what you are saying but the chip is a 4K chip to start with (just like the last camera)....so they don't turn it into a 1080 chip to shoot 1080, it's 4k picture taker that is scaled down internally.......
 
Jim Martin said:
I see what you are saying but the chip is a 4K chip to start with (just like the last camera)....so they don't turn it into a 1080 chip to shoot 1080, it's 4k picture taker that is scaled down internally.......
Click to expand...

You don't seem to understand my initial point. As far as the 4k "chip" goes. I'm aware of the sensor. I own a C300 and a C100 and have been shooting them for years.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I don't understand your initial point either, Travis. Perhaps you can elaborate.
Click to expand...

When I shoot 4k and then pull a 1080 frame out of it, it's not at the expense of sharpness or DR. So far, several of cropped C300 Mk2 images have been soft, with what appears to be limited DR. Add to that, you have to severely reframe, or change lenses and it becomes a bit of a hassle. If I'm shooting a scene at 30mm, I'd have to go to a 15mm lens in order to get a slice of that at 120p and if the sharpness and DR isn't there, it could present an issue when cutting it all together.

Not a deal-breaker to me personally, but not the same as grabbing a pristine 1080 frame out of a nicely acquired 4k image.
 
Last edited:
You're basing what you say off of viewing sample footage uploaded at various compression schemes to the Internet and shot by people of a variety of skill-sets who are all new to the camera, so basing any opinions on what we've seen thus far is rather subjective and unreliable.

When you shoot in 4k with a 30mm lens and pull a 1080p frame out of the center portion of the image (punching in 200%) your crop factor doubles (in post), so on a C300 Mark II it would go from 1.53 crop to 3.06. That's for shooting in 4k and then cropping in post, which you say is siginifcantly better. I'm not sure what the exact crop factor for 120 fps on the C300 Mark II is, seems like I heard 2x the normal 1.53 crop factor, so let's just say it's that. So now you have a camera that shoots 4k with a 1.53 crop factor, with a 2x crop factor for 120 fps at 1080, which makes it a 3.06 crop factor, which is exactly the same crop factor as if you had shot in 4k and then cropped the exact same amount in post. So in terms of lens selection and crop factor, I'm still not understanding your point.

So since the crop factor is the same between post cropping and in-camera cropping then the only real variable for 1080p viewing would be how well the camera internally downscales the image to 1080p vs how well a computer can downscale 4K footage in post.

The C300 Mark I and C100 have a 4k sensor downscaling internally to 1080p which I (and others) often thought look as sharp or sharper than many 4k cameras (GH4, AS7, FS7, etc.) when those 4k cameras are downscaled in post to 1080p.

I'm also unclear how a center crop would affect dynamic range at all. Cropping itself wouldn't affect dynamic range; the only reason I can think of that dynamic range would be affected would be if more of the data rate for 120 fps would be used for creating extra frames at the loss of using data for dynamic range.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
So in terms of lens selection and crop factor, I'm still not understanding your point.
Click to expand...

Because you have to change lenses (changing optic characteristics) or move the camera to maintain the same FOV you were shooting in 24p. For some moving the entire setup or stopping to change lenses to get a slomo of the same scene isn't a big deal but for it will be a big deal.
 
I took the C300MKII to a paid shoot the day after it arrived. Weird UV lighting but it did good at higher iso than I would ever normally use. Took some quick test shots at night as well at high iso. No card so recorded 1080 10bit 422 into Ninja blade using Wide DR - BT 709 - Cinema EOS Original and then the shot of girl yawning in green sweater and night shots were - Wide DR - BT 709 - Production Camera. No edit, no music and no grade, just some quick shots. I'm seeing banding and artefacts on Youtube not on originalHD footage. iT is what it is.

https://youtu.be/oZMSfF2Fdcw
 
I just don't understand how Canon can justify such a hefty price tag for a MK II.. The specs just don't add up to the investment for me, they are 18 months late to the party IMHO.. #FS7
 
When you get the FS7 to match what the C300 MK II does, the price is much closer.....$8K + $2500 back + $2000 for an Odyssey 7Q+....and then you add in the Sony cards that will stay expensive vs. Cfast which will go up in capacity and down in price much faster than Sony cards....and then the DNA issue...C300 MK II = warm and creamy look (faces nailed) vs the Sony look which means you'll spend more time in post working on the faces with the FS7........
This is what is being repeated to me by many a working people here in LA.
Look, both are great cameras and both will get the job done....and the price on the C300 MK II doesn't seem to stop all the orders we have and are still getting.......and using your words, then the FS7 is more than 1/2 a year late to the party.
 
Jim Martin said:
C300 MK II = warm and creamy look (faces nailed)
Click to expand...
Somehow I don't equate warm and creamy with faces nailed.

Hellraiser.jpg


I still need to get around to watching Hellraiser one of these days. Kind of a cult classic. The above image was shot on film of course, to give you an indication of the quality of film's skin-tones.
 
Jim Martin said:
When you get the FS7 to match what the C300 MK II does, the price is much closer.....$8K + $2500 back + $2000 for an Odyssey 7Q+....and then you add in the Sony cards that will stay expensive vs. Cfast which will go up in capacity and down in price much faster than Sony cards....and then the DNA issue...C300 MK II = warm and creamy look (faces nailed) vs the Sony look which means you'll spend more time in post working on the faces with the FS7........
This is what is being repeated to me by many a working people here in LA.
Look, both are great cameras and both will get the job done....and the price on the C300 MK II doesn't seem to stop all the orders we have and are still getting.......and using your words, then the FS7 is more than 1/2 a year late to the party.
Click to expand...

You mean match as in 12-bit 444? Because otherwise the FS7 is much more feature rich. No amount of add on hardware will get you 4k60 in the C300ii, if that's important to you.

If you shoot with a LUT both cameras are pretty much plug & play. Cine EI has excellent color. Not sure what you mean about faces nailed...

They are both great cameras no doubt. If you shoot a lot of C300 shows the choice is obvious, otherwise FS7 will surely fit the bill.
 
remsyatassi said:
You mean match as in 12-bit 444? Because otherwise the FS7 is much more feature rich. No amount of add on hardware will get you 4k60 in the C300ii, if that's important to you.
Click to expand...
Unless you do green screen I doubt many people will be shooting much in 12-bit 4:4:4 at 1080p. Though, I thought extra resolution was also good for green screen, in which case that may not even be the best option. I don't really do green screen work.

What do you mean the FS7 is much more feature rich? Only main feature it has over the C300 Mark II I can think of is slow motion capabilities, which isn't important to people like myself who don't use slow motion much. You get lower data rate options for 4K on the FS7, which is nice, but you don't get an option for higher data rates internally at 4K. There's the option to gain a stop of light and go full frame with a speed booster, but that's at the expense of having to use adapters in the first place which is generally more of a pain than using a native mount. That's like only two or three features I can think of assuming you don't call a lower price tag a feature.
 
The 4k 60p has been corrected as NOT an option for a few months now. Please stop repeating this.

After using the FS7 on various shoots this year it has proven itself to me to be not up to professional standards in my and many other people's minds. The problems I've experienced with that camera in just this year are numerous. Lens mount issues, color issues, menu issues, pixelated highlight issues, color casts.

Canon turns on works, producers like it. Worth the cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top