Canon C300 and high level of noise

A

Alpha Beta Omega

Veteran
Canons C300 really puts your mind in an uneasy state. On one hand it is pretty much a brilliant camera but with shortcomings like no 10-bit and no 1080p60. Some of the footage look stellar and sensitivity is super high. But what I see is also a noisy image. Even at the base ISO of 850. To me Sonys F3 look cleaner and frankly noise on lower ISO reminds me of about the same level as from Panasonics AF100. And it has been criticized for it's noise since day one but no one even seems to bother about the noise from the C300. Why is that?

The amount of noise in a well lit scene from the C300 looks low or absent but when you get to areas with chunks of black or near black it's just noisy. Just like any of these large sensor cameras do. ISO20.000 looks amazing but let's be real and consider ISO up to 6400 as the workable range one would use. I'm I the only one seeing a large amount of noise from the C300 even at low ISO?
 
This is where the debate is going to get interesting. Noise or grain. Yes the F3 is cleaner, and so many cameras are so sharp and clean you lose some of the texture that was there in film. When I saw the grain in the picture it reminded me of when I shot film and added another dimension. So is it bad, I don't think so, it's very tight and does not feel as much like video noise, but it's going to be one of those things, that people like or hate. Found this on Phillip Bloom's blog:

SFX genius, Magic Bullet creator and all round nice fella Stu Maschwitz explained this is not all bad on his blog…

“Again, a pro of this camera crops up to dampen this con: The C300 is not a noise-free camera. Its noise is, in fact, quite lovely and cinematic. Noisy images don’t have to be as high-bit-depth as clean ones to look good. And a very gentle denoising pass can promote C300 footage to 16-bit without much loss in detail.

The C300 is crippled in ways that one would not expect from a $20,000 camera, but it is also empowered in ways usually reserved for much more expensive rigs. It uses a 4K sensor to make its HD images, meaning that all its internal processing is 4:4:4. It kills in low light and when it gets noisy, the noise looks like film grain.”
 
So in your experience has the C300 visible noise even at low ISO settings? I know you probably should stay at 850 so how's the noise at 850? Is it noiseless or noisy? Again a well lit scene will look good with most camera at high ISO so I'm talking about real low light scenes in parts of the frame that are underexposed.
 
Last edited:
It would be good if you could post some frame grabs from the noise you mention. So far, I haven't seen any noise from this camera at low ISO's, at 20 000 you're bound to get some noise, but its not the kind of noise that is going to ruin your picture, even then you can easily clean it up.

The noise you might see in Canon Log will disappear once you grade your blacks to level. There was a test posted yesterday that included low light tests with specific reference to noise, and there it was very clear that even in a very dark scene, at ISO 2500, the noise was almost none. And yes, even when noise appears, its not a fixed pattern noise like all other cameras, its a more 'organic' noise, supposed to simulate film grain. Keep in mind that film's maximum ISO was 500! if that was good enough for everyone, I fail to understand how 2500 will not be good enough for everybody else!
 
I for one know the AF100 noise quite well, and I think for me, at least, the problem wasn't actually the noise itself, but the sharpening algorithm that Panasonic used. When I backed that off completely, none of the noise jumped out at me as it had before. Further, the problem with the AF100 noise *for me* was that it wasn't consistent in the footage. In the blacks it was gone, but, in the dark grays, it was dancing wildly. It ALWAYS caught my eyes. Reducing the sharpness and it was gone, and I was fine with the softer image.

With the C300, and all the footage that is posted, I can definitely understand the concern. If you look at the humorous video that is posted, there are certainly scenes that show a lot more noise than I would expect, BUT, then I'll see a scene at a high ISO and it has less noise than a lower ISO showed. I have no doubt that's what they shot, but, it does leave you scratching your head to figure out why.

When I shoot high ISO with either the 7D and FS100, I find that the *feeling* of the noise isn't always the same in a scene. If I have a lot of dark/grey in the scene, it really pops out at me. When it ends up being brighter at that high ISO, the noise doesn't seem as apparent. After watching much of the C300 footage we can see, I see this effect happening to my interpretation as well.

To me, to get a good idea of the noise structure, I think the ISO16k file you can download shows just what Canon has. While they've claimed they've tuned it to look more like film, comparing it to noise out of my 7D, which I did, it looks the same, just finer (given finer resolution). Also, there IS fixed noise at high ISO. I imagine what they really mean is they might have reduced it from previous designs, but it's there and VERY easy to see. But, let's be realistic, it's 16k!!!! At reasonable ISOs I see NO fixed noise, and to me, THAT is where it really matters.

I think before you judge what the noise looks like, you'll need to get the camera in hand and play with it. In addition, I would NOT be opposed to using Neat Video or other noise reduction plugins. Even though you get a hit on detail with a noise plugin, just a tiny bit of it might REALLY blow the noise out. I've seen examples of FS100 footage at 16k with neat video that looked stunning to me, to the point I would NOT have believed it was 16k. The C300 should fair VERY well with noise plugins I feel given the density of the noise.
 
There is noise. A lot of noise. I can see it in nearly every shot of the C300 posted, aside from those that are purely daylit. Weird as this sounds, though? THe noise doesn't bother me. I think, as everyone has said, it's because it doesn't look like chroma noise. It's not turning shadows blue or green, it's just fine "grain" lightly dancing in the lower mids and blacks.

I'm experimenting with a hacked GH2 and in ETC mode the camera is so grainy, however the S16 lenses in well lit situations--combined with the grained, make for some of the most intense footage I've ever witnessed. It's VERY noisey, but man it looks so good.

The problem crops up when you do not have a lot of light, and the noise begins to transform into something blue and ugly. That's what kills it for me. So, as long as the C300 noise doesn't start dipping into that territory I'd be pretty happy with it.

I will say that Epic 5K footage is pretty-much noise free when the sensor is even moderately exposed. And, 5K denoise then dropping to 2K/1080 is incredibly clean. Recently squeegied Glass-window clean.
 
Awh!!! so this fine noise grain is probably what's been having me like the look of this cam so much. This explains the filmic texture of the footage I've been seeing vrs the others. Good find. I'll take this noise and the look of it's aesthetics over the sony f3. I think the tight noise pattern on the dvx/hvx accompanied with certain brand of 35mm adapters is what we've been missing in the dslr world. this cam Is the closest thing I've seen to an hvx red rock 35mm adapter combo. choose your poison.
 
Maybe I am using terms that are different to other people, but I don't see monochromatic noise in the C300 footage. To me, monochromatic is like the AF100. If you look at the noise, there is NO color component in the noise, it's always varying levels of whatever color is being sampled. I've seen film grain that looks closer to this.

With the C300, I see the same exact noise structure as the 7D. Here is a blowup of the ISO16K footage, and I just used brightness to pop the colors up a bit more for easy seeing. I used nearest neighbor sampling on the blowup so it didn't try and interpolate values and smear them more:

nearest.jpg

You can see the red/blue/green splotches in the noise. (the artifacts in the compression here are jpeg, not the footage)

Now compare that to this photograph that was shot on film then scanned in with a film scanner:

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&h...3&tbnw=232&start=0&ndsp=35&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0

That's the noise structure I think looks more like film, and I feel with the sharpening off on the AF100, it's been the closest I've seen to getting this. Granted, there is a tiny bit of chromatic in film, as if you look at other examples on the site, you can see some of it, but it's very very light, and much lighter than what I am seeing on the C300.

I'm not saying that I dislike it, as I am fine with the noise structure on the 7D (although lower levels would have been nice), but to claim they've improved the noise over their DSLRs, I'm just not seeing it. It might be at a lower level, but it still looks the same to me.
 
That's 16000 ISO. I dont' see monochromatic noise at 850ISO, just super high ISOs.

Like Editman, I am not concerned with anything above 6400 ISO for a real working environment.

THe examples we've seen have shown 6400's noise structure to be plenty pleasant. That's enough for me.
 
Rick, You realize you're comparing a digital camera at iso 16,000 to film at probably iso 400 right? I do understand that you are comparing the noise structure, but this seems a little unbalanced.
 
What I am comparing is the noise structure of the C300 versus the noise structure of the 7D/5D. I absolutely see the noise is MUCH less than at least the 7D (I don't own a 5D), but the signature when amplified up looks the same to me (at different levels of amplification). Canon said they tuned the noise to look more like film, but when I amplify it up so I can see the noise, it looks the same. What was tuned? I'm just trying to understand what it is they are talking about.

Unfortunately, the humorous video has no download, and it's 720p at that. The big thing about the C300 is the noise is a VERY tight grain. THIS maybe is what they are more referring too, but, it's really a product of the spatial sampling being higher, not any type of tuning. The C300 samples MUCH higher than the 7D.

The point of the film is just to show the grain coloring, not anything specific to the density of noise. Had this been much faster film, it would have had A LOT more grain in it as you can imagine.

The other issue is that H.264 removes fine detail and grain is fine detail. Until you can actually see the source files, it's really hard to know exactly what you are getting. This frame grab was from the file from the camera it appears, but, the JPEG makes what I posted look even worse :) Which is why I added the note.

Don't misread this, I am not saying the C300 noise looks bad, I am really undecided about it on a whole because *I* want to use the camera with my lenses at ISOs that I use to REALLY evaluate what I get. So far, a few of the shots in the humorous video I wasn't overly excited about, but the H.264 was definitely what I was seeing so I felt I really couldn't judge what was there.

Would I say I am overly concerned? No. :)
 
editman said:
Canons C300 really puts your mind in an uneasy state. On one hand it is pretty much a brilliant camera but with shortcomings like no 10-bit and no 1080p60. Some of the footage look stellar and sensitivity is super high. But what I see is also a noisy image. Even at the base ISO of 850. To me Sonys F3 look cleaner and frankly noise on lower ISO reminds me of about the same level as from Panasonics AF100. And it has been criticized for it's noise since day one but no one even seems to bother about the noise from the C300. Why is that?
Click to expand...
I was one of the people who complained about the noise in the early AF100 footage and got slammed here for having bad monitors and whatnot. Then they claimed it was vimeo´s problem although we all had seen cleaner footage from other cameras. There is a distinct difference between vimeo-compression artifacts and noise. Then you, editman, and others found clean settings for the AF100 and since then it wasn´t much of an issue.
With the C300 I never saw noise that jumped at me like it did in the early AF100 shots (on the same screens I used then). Of course there´s noise in the 16k ISO, but to be honest, I wouldn´t mind it at all, because when you shoot ISO 16k there is probably content worth it.......
 
dustylense said:
Guys, watch these things on something else than your laptop. I see no noise when watching on my DLP TV. NONE.
Click to expand...

Not everyone creates content for television or theatre. This is the same argument that was brought up with the AF100 about watching it on a computer, and I just don't agree with it. We create a lot of web content. Because of that, LOTS of people are going to be watching it on their laptops or home computers. Therefore, for me, I want the noise reduced further so that in MANY viewing circumstances, it looks as best as possible.

I watch movie trailers all the time on my same laptop and I never see noise popping out at me from the footage. Clearly someone is making content that doesn't suffer from gamma changes between tv/projection and computer displays.

We all have different needs in what our camera can deliver.

And let me add, I'm not saying the C300 is suffering from this OR like the results of the AF100. I'm just saying in general. I'm really looking foreword to taking some higher ISO C300 footage and playing with it using noise reduction in post. Given the really high grain structure, I want to see what happens.
 
Nuno Dias said:
It would be good if you could post some frame grabs from the noise you mention. So far, I haven't seen any noise from this camera at low ISO's, at 20 000 you're bound to get some noise, but its not the kind of noise that is going to ruin your picture, even then you can easily clean it up.

The noise you might see in Canon Log will disappear once you grade your blacks to level. There was a test posted yesterday that included low light tests with specific reference to noise, and there it was very clear that even in a very dark scene, at ISO 2500, the noise was almost none. And yes, even when noise appears, its not a fixed pattern noise like all other cameras, its a more 'organic' noise, supposed to simulate film grain. Keep in mind that film's maximum ISO was 500! if that was good enough for everyone, I fail to understand how 2500 will not be good enough for everybody else!
Click to expand...

That s a very good point about the log footage raw. Blacks are up around 20 units and your right, when its graded you would lose it there
 
I'm still amazed with certain poster's definitive statements on grain/noise with the 300. How can you really judge it based on internet footage? Some posters see it, others don't. Obviously, the combination of internet feed, compressions, monitors, etc, effects what one sees..or not.You really need to see footage direct from the source on a production monitor or, as we got to see at the event, 4K projection on the 2nd biggest screen west of the Mississippi. Now I know everyone didn't get that opportunity but I did hear that Canon is trying to line up screenings around the country and if they do, the word will get out....so people can really see what we got to see. The only film where we really saw the grain, and Canon really looks like grain, was in Swords....and their assignment was to see how far they could go. In the last scene, they used no lights, went to 20,000ISO and the grain we saw was what you would expect to see at 1200 or 1600.....very impressive. The other thing that seems to be registering here in town, is the real lack of lighting needed and the fact the all the DPs reported doing 60-70 set ups a day! Both are real money savers.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
I completely agree. I own an FS100 that I've done tests at ISO16k, and I downloaded footage from the C300 at ISO16k, it's the only closest metric I have to ACTUAL performance from the C300 in my hands, and in that test, I can say I think the noise in the C300 is less than AND looks better than what I get in the FS100. And most people tend to agree that the FS100 is really good at being a low noise camera.

Something to consider as well is that, with regards to say the FS100, the blacks are already crushed on most tests in camera, whereas with the C300 footage, and DEFINITELY in the log setting, you aren't crushing them. Why does this matter? Well, if you are exposing for the skin of someone in front of the camera, on the C300 you probably will see a bit more noise around the blacks because you are not crushing it. If you look at that same exposure with say the FS100, it would be cleaner only because you'd compressed the noise in the blacks from the camera settings (and the detail would be gone as well).

Once that data comes off the sensor, it starts as (mostly) linear. Log keeps it more linear so the noise is more consistent across the exposure range. Using many of the built in profiles, you are compressing the range in the blacks down which also compresses the noise difference as well. (What Nuno was hinting at).

These are the types of image processing that can really affect what you perceive AND will be much different after you say grade log footage.
 
If we just look past the excellent high ISO noise which I think is superb at 16k and 20k and more of the range one normally would shoot at - 850ISO. I know a computer screen is about the worst screen to use. My Pioneer plasma is way superior and if it's fed with high quality footage it looks great. It also shows less noise or more pleasing noise than what my HP ZR22W does or the Philips LCD I have. But just as with the AF100 it's easy to compare different cameras regardless of screen. On the same screen one camera looks noisy and the other does not.

I have gone through many hours tweaking my AF101 to achieve as pleasing image as I can with little noise and I'm sure the same will hold true on the C300. But my initial question was more of like - is the C300 a camera with such a great image that we ignore it's noisy appearance? I have compared my 5DmkII to the AF many times and I concluded that they have about the same amount of noise but the 5DmkII is more pleasing, not as course as the AF until it gets tweaked. On the other I could not detect any FPN on the AF but on the 5DmkII I constantly hit the FPN of that sensor.

So let's say I use 850ISO for 85% of what I do on the C300. Certainly I would expect it to be very clean without any disturbing noise since it's the base ISO of the sensor. Regardless of which screen I would watch the footage on. I agree that it's a pleasing noise character coming from the C300. But I guess I was expecting something like the Sony cameras when it comes to base ISO clean image. Not an image that most of the times, when having near black objects, have noise.
 
A sidenote.

I've shot with one of the superflat profiles on my 7D and having used this camera with only dialed down settings before that one occasion with superflat was by far the worst when I started to grade. It just fell apart quickly. 8-bit to me and using a to flat profile is just pushing it. Later I've experimented doing the same on the AF camera and it worked in certain situations but in others I'd been better of shooting in a more WYSIWYG fashion. I suspect the same is true for the C300. Don't push it to far.
 
I'm sorry, but I fail to see noise in the footage I have seen so far. Noise at 20.000, sure, but at 850? I didn't even see noise at 2500 on nigh shots! Even on Nigel's cake shots, the images were very clean.

And I'm sure the same lighting sets shot on another camera, including the Red, would be all over the place. I've shot Red on dark sets, and it either just 'clips' to black or it shows enough 'bad' noise. In fact I haven't seen such powerful, clean image appart from the Alexa on these kinds of lighting scenarios and ISOs.

Anyway, I'm sure you can find enough of anything if you really want to see it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top