C500: C500 Mark II: Observations from a C300MkII point of view

[jcs]

Many of have been saying these camera should look their absolute best with the default setting. Turn on camera, set lens and settings, shoot and get great results. It should be that simple (that's pretty much what you'll get with any ARRI camera with the 709 ProRes setting). Original might make more sense to a JP translator vs. Default. The fact that this original/default (not even log!) 709 setting totally hung with cameras shooting raw -6 to +6 is pretty excellent, right?!

Predict that Dan / puredrifting will find the IQ pretty amazing (especially DR, skintones, exposure invariant color, and detail), the vND super useful, XLR audio excellent, the IQ holds well even with relatively small XAVC files, which are great for saving diskspace after working with huge CRL from the C200 (and the XAVC files will be surprisingly maleable vs. raw).
Try using a Black ProMist 1/4 or similar to take the edge off the hyper detailed image (or can do in post, though can be nice/useful halation with diffusion filters that's a bit more work in post to emulate).

If you stick with S-Cinetone / Original (Default) and SLog3, you shouldn't have to mess with menus too much (like anything, you can get used to Sony's overly complex menus: as Sony gets better Original/Default settings, as with the Alexa and Venice, the menu systems can get much simpler since less tweaking will be required).

The post gyro stablized footage isn't ready for primetime, so that's where the C500 II has an edge with built in D.IS (though not perfect either: good for some shots, not all). VF and ergo is dependent on how one uses a camera and rigging tools on hand: predict there may be some gripes there (beyond the menus, S&Q/slomo switching etc.).

In terms of "fun" for the output image, I predict the fun rating will be high!

 

[robotfist]

Original might make more sense to a JP translator vs. Default.

How about they just call it what they've been marketing it as and what they've been telling everyone it is... S-Cinetone?

Canon doesn't call CanonLog3 "Special" or "Normal". Arri doesn't call the Rec 709 "Regular". It's so strange to me that Sony decided it's better to put some non descriptive, generic term for a setting they themselves call S-Cinetone. But that's Sony. They've always been like that. And just like anything, after you use a Sony for a while, you definitely get used to it and it becomes less of an issue. But jumping straight into Sony after using just about any other camera system can be a rather frustrating experience. They don't make it easy.

 

[jcs]

Could be that they hadn't finalized the marketing name S-Cinetone and just left the placeholder name in the settings for manufacturing (then didn't update the firmware = more cost). Agree S-Cinetone would be more descriptive; in the end it won't affect the image. Another reason why it would be great if camera manufacturers opened up their camera OSes to third part apps which could create new (better/simpler) menus and camera controls. Perhaps a future FW update can fix menu.

 

[Liam Hall]

FWIW the menu structure on the FX9 is much improved over the FS7.

 

[puredrifting]

FWIW the menu structure on the FX9 is much improved over the FS7.

As a long time Sony menu hater, that doesn't fill me with optimism. I'm heading down to Sony in a few hours, having a trainer walk me through the FX9 menus and presets I can set up so that may help but generally
Sony has the worst of the worst menu system, their menus usually have little logic to where they put things and often, features you need to use all of the time, like how to erase/reformat media, are buried layers deep.

Hands down, BMD, inexplicably, has the best menus in the business. So simple, clean, logical, easy to navigate, I wish they would standardize and license their menu system to the entire industry, life would be so much better
for all of us. Canon and Arri probably tie for second. RED? Meh, a bit convoluted and kind of weird but at least you can figure them out. Panasonics I used to really like in the DVX and HVX/HPX days but using my producing
partner's HPX270, they went to this two layer/mode approach that's shared with the Varicams that I hate and he hates, it's not intuitive. Then there is Sony. My Fuji, I'll place somewhere in the middle, at least they segregate
their video functions to their own menu, but once again formatting media and especially setting up display items is like an exploration of the Amazon Jungle.

 

[Airwolf]

I often think I've made bad decision purchasing the C500 Mk II, and then I think about Sony menus, and the fact that you have to restart the camera to go into 60p on the FX9, and it makes me feel slightly better.

I remember I was on a shoot with my FS5, coming off shooting on a Canon, and I chose "Initialize" on accident instead of "Format", and it reset the camera to factory defaults instead of initializing the card. Needless to say I missed a few shots.
That one still pisses me off to this day.

 

[Guest]

At the very least, camera manufacturers should agree on terms like erasing a card. Everyone tries to have their own wording for some things that should not be confusing.

Some confusion is just the nature of things. For example, people are just going to be confused about LUT’s and burned in. It’s just going to happen, haha, but something as direct and straight forward clearing the information from a card, would be nice if the terminology was the same on all systems.

 

[Guest]

I often think I've made bad decision purchasing the C500 Mk II, and then I think about Sony menus, and the fact that you have to restart the camera to go into 60p on the FX9, and it makes me feel slightly better.

I remember I was on a shoot with my FS5, coming off shooting on a Canon, and I chose "Initialize" on accident instead of "Format", and it reset the camera to factory defaults instead of initializing the card. Needless to say I missed a few shots.
That one still pisses me off to this day.

It’s a dope camera, there isn’t really a bad camera out there right now. All about what makes you happy and gets you shooting, right?

We’re at a point where a camera can be better than another, but neither one is bad.

A friend showed me some footy they shot on the 500mkii, and wow! Gorgeous shots. I don’t know how they did it with such a shite camera, haha.

 

[Barry G]

Gorgeous shots. I don’t know how they did it with such a s*%te camera, haha.

So true.

I had a couple of sit down interviews yesterday that, due to a scheduling and location change (interior location became unavailable), left me 10 minutes to set up an exterior, at mid-day, in a fully exposed location... except for one corner that was in deep shadow, where I placed the subjects. The background was a fully sunlit Pool, white buildings and patio furniture. With no time to light, I threw a Hail Mary and exposed to hold the background. With my C300II, this would have meant some not so fabulous noise in the subject's dark jacket, and pulling skin tones up from the more questionable part of the Log2 curve. This camera is such an improvement from that older camera in terms of the quality of its DR...and I'm seeing much improved results pushing and pulling 10bit 4k XFAVC in Log2. (the C300II tends to show some color banding (posterization) in skin tones when doing what I did yesterday, and the new camera seems to have a much cleaner signal, and I've yet to see that kind of behavior from it).

I'm curious, Airwolf. How did your shadow streaking issue resolve itself? Did Canon replace or fix the camera?

Barry

 

[Airwolf]

Barry, still waiting on Canon. I spoke to a rep yesterday who says that the engineers in Japan have the raw files I sent them and they are working on it, no word other than that.

 

[Guest]

Barry, still waiting on Canon. I spoke to a rep yesterday who says that the engineers in Japan have the raw files I sent them and they are working on it, no word other than that.

Hey, i missed the whole thing were you mentioned the issues you are having with the C500ii. My post just above definitely was oblivious to that, and totally doesn’t apply to your situation.

 

[Airwolf]

Looks like Chris posted a new comparison, and holy crap, look at the noise in her hair on the C500 in the raw.

 

[cpreston]

Looks like Chris posted a new comparison, and holy crap, look at the noise in her hair on the C500 in the raw.

This is why using other people's tests to make assumptions about a camera can lead to problems. First, he was underexposing the C500 II relative to the C200 by over a stop and then raising the exposure in post in order to make them match. He even states in the comments not to compare the noise levels in the cameras. Second, WideDR raises the shadows and blacks above the optimum range. He seems to like the look, but it isn't supposed to be a final grade. Third, he seems to be comparing the XF-AVC codecs to the RAW codecs in relation to skin tones and colors without thinking about the fact that the RAW colors are just a result of the LUT that he is using.

My take away is that the C500 II RAW is basically the same as the C200 RAW, but with a higher resolution.

 

[Barry G]

This is why using other people's tests to make assumptions about a camera can lead to problems. First, he was underexposing the C500 II relative to the C200 by over a stop and then raising the exposure in post in order to make them match. He even states in the comments not to compare the noise levels in the cameras. Second, WideDR raises the shadows and blacks above the optimum range. He seems to like the look, but it isn't supposed to be a final grade. Third, he seems to be comparing the XF-AVC codecs to the RAW codecs in relation to skin tones and colors without thinking about the fact that the RAW colors are just a result of the LUT that he is using.

My take away is that the C500 II RAW is basically the same as the C200 RAW, but with a higher resolution.

Well, at least in the noise comparison test he's actually got the same exposure (f5.6), but I don't know what's going on in that shot in terms of noise in the hair. That's ugly, and I'm not seeing anything like that in my footage (a sample clip linked below). Look at the shadow area around his shirt to the left of his head...a dark red in deep shadows, similar to that hair. I've lifted that area a little in Post. Nothing like what he's seeing in terms of noise. Looks like either its been pushed a lot, or that he's sharpened it, or both, or maybe something going on with the LUT in premiere (wouldn't surprise me, I've seen LUTS bring out noise in the strangest places, switch LUTS and it goes away. Looking at his Log image and the waveform it doesn't look like there is any weird noise in the shadows to me, (and RGB waveform would help).

As for the Wide DR, this is the default for canon these days, and is one of the reasons why most of the chart comparisons we've seen the Canon looks lifted and a little desaturated (on top of the default neutral matrix).

To me, the telling difference in the two cameras is something I've been talking about relative to the C300 mark II...take a look at the enlarged noise comparisons in Chris's video. Both of them look crappy in the hair, however in the shadow side of her skin, the story is different -- C500II is much quieter there, and the C200 is breaking up. This is very similar to what the C300II does and one of the reasons you need to rate it at 400-500, or ETTR by at least a stop. I'm finding that the C500II looks great at 800, and the "mid" shadows are much cleaner at every ISO.

I'm also seeing quite a bit more variation in color rendition between the cameras in Chris's shots...the greens, cranberries, and blues are all different. Maybe he's using a different LUT, or different matrix.

 

[cpreston]

One noticeable problem for me with the C500 MKII is the fan noise. It is quite a bit louder than the C300 MKII. In addition, the fan comes on in room temperature during recording when set at automatic. Also, my fan has a noticeable buzz. Kind of like a cheap computer fan. I am actually wondering if I need to send my camera in.

Even if there is something wrong with my fan, I am surprised at how much air flow is pushed through the body. At the lowest setting, it is louder and blows more air than the C300 MKII ever got. At the highest setting, I can feel the wind from ten feet away. It is a bit strange.

 

[Barry G]

One noticeable problem for me with the C500 MKII is the fan noise. It is quite a bit louder than the C300 MKII. In addition, the fan comes on in room temperature during recording when set at automatic. Also, my fan has a noticeable buzz. Kind of like a cheap computer fan. I am actually wondering if I need to send my camera in.

Even if there is something wrong with my fan, I am surprised at how much air flow is pushed through the body. At the lowest setting, it is louder and blows more air than the C300 MKII ever got. At the highest setting, I can feel the wind from ten feet away. It is a bit strange.

Yeah it is pretty loud...and it's on when you start up the camera, so you really notice it...I haven't compared it to my C300II...but it feels louder. I'd be a little concerned if I had a mic on camera. Gonna have to try that "10 feet away" thing. Could come in useful this summer...or if we need the models hair to move...

 

[cpreston]

Yeah it is pretty loud...and it's on when you start up the camera, so you really notice it...I haven't compared it to my C300II...but it feels louder. I'd be a little concerned if I had a mic on camera. Gonna have to try that "10 feet away" thing. Could come in useful this summer...or if we need the models hair to move...

Does your fan have it's own high pitched whine/hum, or do you only hear the airflow through the vent. I'm wondering if my fan has issues that is worth sending it in for. I can put up with the airflow, but the actual sound of the vibrating fan is a problem.

 

[Airwolf]

Does your fan have it's own high pitched whine/hum, or do you only hear the airflow through the vent. I'm wondering if my fan has issues that is worth sending it in for. I can put up with the airflow, but the actual sound of the vibrating fan is a problem.

Mine does not vibrate, it just whirls up when you turn the camera on.

 

[jcs]

Wrapping tests shortly- re: fan noise- Gemini and FX9 were silent, C500 II was loud at idle and silent while recording.
On the studio monitor the C500 II and FX9 looked similarly sharp/detailed, Gemini a bit softer.
Viewfinders used on all cameras were detailed (EVF-V70 on C500 II), Red OLED on the Gemini, FX9 stock. Ordered for quality/prefs of the two camera operators. I thought they were all fine- can judge focus.

 

[Barry G]

Here are a couple of rehearsal shots (thus the crappy framing) from a new reel video I'm working on for my dancer friend. We were repurposing a set and some lighting from another video I was shooting. I think these are a good example of how well the AF on this camera works. We must have done this shot 30 times with a variety of walks, in several types of lighting, face occasionally leaving the frame, or hidden by hair or shadow...most of them very fast with the camera pushing in at a high speed as well. The AF never failed to keep her face tracked, mostly starting with an area selection and then switching to face tracking as she got in range. From an exposure point of view, in the shots that are spot lit from the front, she's walking forward about 9 feet towards a Leko Spot that is about 16 feet away from her starting point...which means there's about a 3 stop increase in her skin exposure during the clip.

These were shot in 5.9k Raw. One of the hidden benefits I see with the Raw capture, I think...is that you aren't "shooting in Log" necessarily. Canon notes that AF doesn't work as well in LOG, and I've noticed that to be true over the years with my DPAF upgraded C300, and the C300 mark II. Anyway, shooting in raw lets you shoot in "rec709" for better AF, but you essentially get a Log file if you prefer to grade that way.