C300: Cinema 5D Test Claims 12.3 stops of DR for the C300 MKII!

cinema5D said:
Please do show us your real world 5D3 vs. C300 comparison. I don't see many people going around claiming what you're claiming.
Here's the software we're using by the way: http://www.imatest.com
Their algorithm is what judges the S/N in each patch. We rely on its evaluation and I think it's doing a good job as an industry standard tool.
Click to expand...

Sure, concert footage is pretty much all I shoot. So no problem supplying content. Will dig some out when I get a break from my current project.
 
cinema5D said:
I don't see many people going around claiming what you're claiming.
Click to expand...
Really? Pretty much every C100/C300 shooter I know came from using a 5D/7D/60D and states that the C100/C300 have significantly better dynamic range, along with probably just about every user in this C-series forum.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
Really? Pretty much every C100/C300 shooter I know came from using a 5D/7D/60D and states that the C100/C300 have significantly better dynamic range, along with probably just about every user in this C-series forum.
Click to expand...


I know...right?! Totally don't get it. Literally, every shooter I know...
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I understand your methods, I just don't think it is a good method that takes into account practicality. By this method you could probably find some super compressed smart phone camera and say it has better dynamic range than an Arri Alexa because all of the noise is smeared in the compression, and since it's then super soft but not noisy, it would get written off by you as "usable dynamic range." And while that test may be, using your methodology, technically accurate, of what benefit would such a test be to professional camera users? We all know the Alexa has better dynamic range than a smart phone, so the only conclusion to draw would be that your test does not provide very useful information to professionals and favors lower quality (lower resolution with more compression and default in-camera noise reduction) cameras in terms of dynamic range.
Click to expand...

The 5D sensor is not bad. It has a lot of dynamic range. Your smartphone will be way off.
IF you shoot a movie with a smartphone I can assume that you have accepted its limitations in terms of noise reduction, low detail and resolution. I can then tell you the dynamic range it reaches, but I can't tell you with the same test that you'll be happy with the detail, color and noise reduction behaviour you get. A DR rating doesn't tell you a camera is great, it just tells you which light areas it still picks up. The 5D does pick up a lot, it is not great in many other regards, but people decide to shoot with it regardless and it deserved a DR rating.

Now, you're having a good time nailing us with that 5D C300 comparison. But we pulled those results a year ago knowing that it will be hard to explain. As mentioned they were simply part of a chart, were not posted as a standalone article or as a claim, simply as a byproduct of listing several cameras we tested in comparison to the A7s. It is absolutely ridiculous to discuss this any further about a comparison that is not even on our website.
 
So...why don't you just become less strict on what you subjectively consider to be usable dynamic range in regards to noise so as to give us professionals more useful tests? I don't think you've ever explained your reasoning behind choosing what you considered usable in terms of noise and I'd be happy to hear that reasoning.

I'd guess that in the video ReelWorksMedia just posted where several 5D highlights are blown out while the C100 is retaining detail in the highlights more, that you would conclude that those C100 shadows, which are nice looking, sharp, completely usable (in my opinion), etc., but have a bit of relatively nicely patterned noise in them, are somehow completely unusable in regards to dynamic range, while the smeared and ugly 5D shadows are completely usable. That's the fault in your tests. The C100 shadows are usable despite the little bit of noise, and actually look better than the smeared and less noisy 5D shadows, but despite looking better, your test is writing off the C100 shadows as unusable and the 5D shadows as usable. That's the flaw.
 
Last edited:
Jim Martin said:
Here's what I put on CanonRumors:
Okay, I think this has gotten a bit out of hand....I'm gonna say I'm 99.9% certain that Cinema5D had one of the prototype cameras....ones that were built in March, not a production run camera. The first production run cameras were just delivered at the end of last week here in the US and I don't think any have been delivered in Europe (where they are located) yet. What they are talking about in terms of the black noise was on 3 different prototypes that I had my hands on. They had good range but we didn't bother testing it because we knew it would not be accurate compared to the final, production run version. I know there is a TON of tweeks, adjustments, etc that have been made to the camera to get it ready for release. The bottom line is, I'd put a lot more credibility in the ASC DP, Gale Tattersall (who shot the demo film "Trick Shot") who says there are definitely 15 stops vs. Cinema5D's test.

I have a query into Cinema5D asking when they did their test and was it a prototype or a production run camera....

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com
Click to expand...

So, you'll put faith in someone paid to shoot the demo film by Canon rather than an independent test. Good grief... ...do you work for Volkswagen in your spare time?

BTW the C300 is here in Europe and already available for hire from Shoot Blue.
 
Liam Hall said:
So, you'll put faith in someone paid to shoot the demo film by Canon rather than an independent test. Good grief... ...do you work for Volkswagen in your spare time?

BTW the C300 is here in Europe and already available for hire from Shoot Blue.
Click to expand...
Liam-
Here's what I wrote on Canonrumors when Sebastian/Cinema5D brought up the same point....you are underestimating the ASC members...

"I don't think you really understand what the ASC is and what it is to be a member of that fraternal Organization. It is quite a long process to be nominated to it, usually after many years coming up through the ranks as an assistant, operator, and then a director of photography. Even then, one does not join, he or she has to nominated by two current members and then it is voted on. Members have been asked by various manufacturers to test cameras for years...seeking definitive evaluations of their cameras. All have been paid for their time and insight but I can guarantee you that they never skew their results to make a given camera appear to be better than it is....they could never face their fellow members again and word would spread, and they would have a tougher time getting jobs...SO, your suggestion that Gale Tattersall ,as well as an ASC member would be bias in their evaluation, is an insult to them, the ASC, and it's members."

EDIT- My mistake, Gale, as of now, is not in the ASC...but should be (House, among others)
 
Last edited:
Jim Martin said:
Liam-
Here's what I wrote on Canonrumors when Sebastian/Cinema5D brought up the same point....you are underestimating the ASC members...

"I don't think you really understand what the ASC is and what it is to be a member of that fraternal Organization. It is quite a long process to be nominated to it, usually after many years coming up through the ranks as an assistant, operator, and then a director of photography. Even then, one does not join, he or she has to nominated by two current members and then it is voted on. Members have been asked by various manufacturers to test cameras for years...seeking definitive evaluations of their cameras. All have been paid for their time and insight but I can guarantee you that they never skew their results to make a given camera appear to be better than it is....they could never face their fellow members again and word would spread, and they would have a tougher time getting jobs...SO, your suggestion that Gale Tattersall ASC,as well as a second ASC member would be bias in their evauluation, is an insult to them, the ASC, and it's members."
Click to expand...

Jim, I'm not insulting Gale Tatershall. No need to lecture or patronise me, I'm not new to this. I used to make demo films for Kodak and know how this floats. There is always a lot of hot air around these releases. Lots of people with vested interests.

There's only one truism here and that is to do your own tests and trust your own eyes. Period.
 
Last edited:
Liam Hall said:
Jim, I'm not insulting Gale Tatershall. No need to lecture or patronise me, I'm not new to this. I used to make demo films for Kodak and know how this floats. There is always a lot of hot air around these releases. Lots of people with vested interests.

There's only one truism here and that is to do your own tests and trust your own eyes. Period.
Click to expand...
Well said......

Jim Martin

PS- My mistake, Gale, at this time, is not in the ASC...but should be, he knows what he is doing.....
 
Plus it's not just Gale Tatershall, but also Geoff Boyle who did a test, and Phillip Bloom who used the camera, who also agreed the dynamic range was around what was advertised by Canon, the latter two who as far as I know weren't paid for their tests.

Then add to that that simply looking at Cinema5D's dubious testing methods which don't seem to be in line with any other dynamic range tests being done in general, and I think the conclusion is that Cinema5D needs to work on improving their methods for testing dynamic range. Either that, or they are right and everyone else is wrong? Unlikely, I think.

Someone wanted me to share this quote from ProVideoCoalition...

http://www.provideocoalition.com/in-a-parallel-universe-aja-s-cion-is-amazing#sthash.LXAlcMP9.dpuf
ProVideoCoalition said:
I’m also concerned about Cinema5D’s use of the DSC Labs Xyla chart to test dynamic range. I own one of these, and whenever I test cameras I use it as the instructions dictate: expose the first chip at clip and then count the number of steps visible to assess dynamic range. Cinema5D seems to be measuring from the third chip down, and the reason for this methodology is not explained. Perhaps they are measuring from the point where the highlight slope reaches a certain steepness, but if this is the case then this should be noted as this is not how the chart is designed to be used.
Click to expand...
 
And I think this whole thing could have been handle better if Cinema5D had not had their article titled "2 stops under what was expected"......it's a bit inflammatory and as we can see on this and other blogs, it lit a bit of a fire.

Jim Martin
EVSonline.com

PS - Tomorrow for our seminar on the C300 MK II, We have about 200 signed up!
 
Jim Martin said:
Well said......

Jim Martin

PS- My mistake, Gale, at this time, is not in the ASC...but should be, he knows what he is doing.....
Click to expand...

Gale DOP'd many TVCs I worked on 25 years ago in London. I have no doubt he's a stand-up guy. I also agree with you that Cinema5D could have handled it better; this rush to judgement on equipment, followed by claim and counter claim does our industry no good whatsoever. Whatever happened to people trusting their own judgement?
 
Cinema 5D testing methods are unorthodox at best. I would take it with a grain of salt. Granted the Canon is expensive, but your also paying for a camera that will undoubtedly be request often based on the color science and durability alone. Canon are a lot like Mac computers in that they work, retain value, and have a relatively long shelf life compared to the competition.
 
Radiant Images have an hour long test clip on Vimeo, where they compare most of the biggies of the moment - Alexa, Sony, Red, etc. C300 MKII is amongst those cams.
 
DLD said:
Radiant Images have an hour long test clip on Vimeo, where they compare most of the biggies of the moment - Alexa, Sony, Red, etc. C300 MKII is amongst those cams.
Click to expand...

jm.gardiner said:
Looks like it holds it's own pretty well to me.

https://vimeo.com/140441330
Click to expand...

Looks like even ASC members can mess up tests. Look at the image for the FS7. That isn't pure Slog2/3 at all. The saturation and contrast should look similar to the F55 example not what they were showing. They either weren't shooting in Log or shot in custom mode with some wonky matrix settings on which skews the results. If you want the best out of the FS7 it should be shot CineEI/Slog3/sgammut3.cine which this clearly wasn't.
 
The Arri models were the only cameras that still rendered the shirts gray at 5 stops over. The C300 Mark II was very competitive in shadow areas and highlights, possibly superior to Arri models in the shadow detail. The Mark II looked similar to F55.

The BMD and A7 cameras were very poor, FS7 not in Log mode, as previously pointed out.

A local rental house just received their first Mark II and reported it to have very good detail and is super clean.
 
I find it remarkable how our test results get washed out in some of the comments here, so much I feel it’s pointless to respond. It seems many people simply “want” the C300 mark II to be awesome and thus resort to accusing us of conducting our tests wrongly, calling it “claims” or criticizing single irrelevant points in this or past articles. This is coming mostly from people who it seems don’t know what testing a camera means.
We take great responsibility and care when conducting our tests and we published the original tested charts on our site so everyone can comprehend the results our software provided.
It is very clear, you can see with your own eyes that there is substantial noise in the dark areas and the light streak problem of the first C300 persists. There is no need to discuss or critizise our “testing methods”, just look at the charts and see.
The tests purpose is to compare C300 mkII to ALEXA and FS7 and the results are very very clear and easy to see. We did not tamper with these charts and would have no reason to. Look at what we do, we take great care in providing the latest news, testing cameras and making our own original content. Thanks for keeping the discussions civilized. Checking out here now. Seb
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top