Custom picture to match C100 & C300

Thanks so much Paul. Trying these out now.

One question. In "PJcineHD" you have the gamma set to "Cine1" but the color matrix set to "normal1." Is this intentional?
 
Great, let me know how they work out for you. The color matrix doesn't need to be set to the same as the gamma, it's really just a taste preference. I was trying for a particular look with that profile, something using the CINE gamma with with more of a saturated look. The combination of CINE1 gamma and the normal1 matrix achieves that well.

The nice thing about having Gamma and Matrix as individual options is that you can play around with just those two settings to dial in looks without messing around in colour correction and RGB gain levels etc.
 
Last edited:
I can tell you with Matt T as my witness I did the following to match the C100 and C300:

1/ Set both cameras to Canon Log.
2/ Turn Sharpness down to -7
3/ Use the tungsten white balance preset.

Shoot.

Matched perfectly.

I understand many of you guys are coming to the C100 from the DSLR world and as such are probably looking at all the picture options with amazement. I can completely appreciate that. Ive created some profiles or using other peoples that help get better greens for greenscreen etc on the C300. The options can be quit powerful.

Ive also discovered (as Ive been shooting on the C300 since mid-feb) that Canon has done a great job in baselining this camera for cine style shooting and that doesnt require all sorts of tweaks out of the box, just a couple. For example I use -7 sharpness and have a slight knee adjustment for any log footage I shoot (not included chroma key shooting).

I also note that many people who are now shooting on the C100 arent shooting Canon Log. This is the most powerful trick this camera has. Ive seen the Wide DR - its not Canon Log. Canon Log requires a slightly different approach for exposure than a DSLR i.e. your 5D's etc. But its the one you should be learning. Lowlight tests etc not shot on Canon Log are not getting the most out of the machine. Its utterly pointless to do side by sides with a 5DMKII for example to see which performs better in lowlight but shoot on the EOS standard preset. A complete waste of time in fact as the C100's curve has been matched to the EOS standard look.

Dont be afraid to grade Canon Log in the back end either. It can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. For example if you grade in FCPX or use the 3 wheel in CS6, a few quick changes to the blacks, mids and highlights to taste can be enough - and then you can use it to do very complex grading in something like resolve.

Just some thoughts based on what Im seeing.
 
Noel Evans said:
I can tell you with Matt T as my witness I did the following to match the C100 and C300:

1/ Set both cameras to Canon Log.
2/ Turn Sharpness down to -7
3/ Use the tungsten white balance preset.

Shoot.

Matched perfectly.

I understand many of you guys are coming to the C100 from the DSLR world and as such are probably looking at all the picture options with amazement. I can completely appreciate that. Ive created some profiles or using other peoples that help get better greens for greenscreen etc on the C300. The options can be quit powerful.

Ive also discovered (as Ive been shooting on the C300 since mid-feb) that Canon has done a great job in baselining this camera for cine style shooting and that doesnt require all sorts of tweaks out of the box, just a couple. For example I use -7 sharpness and have a slight knee adjustment for any log footage I shoot (not included chroma key shooting).

I also note that many people who are now shooting on the C100 arent shooting Canon Log. This is the most powerful trick this camera has. Ive seen the Wide DR - its not Canon Log. Canon Log requires a slightly different approach for exposure than a DSLR i.e. your 5D's etc. But its the one you should be learning. Lowlight tests etc not shot on Canon Log are not getting the most out of the machine. Its utterly pointless to do side by sides with a 5DMKII for example to see which performs better in lowlight but shoot on the EOS standard preset. A complete waste of time in fact as the C100's curve has been matched to the EOS standard look.

Dont be afraid to grade Canon Log in the back end either. It can be as simple or as complex as you want it to be. For example if you grade in FCPX or use the 3 wheel in CS6, a few quick changes to the blacks, mids and highlights to taste can be enough - and then you can use it to do very complex grading in something like resolve.

Just some thoughts based on what Im seeing.
Click to expand...
This is great info. Thanks Noel.
I have the C100 for a week and will shoot two spots with it this week. I have a couple of days to get use to the camera and want to set it up for best image for grading. The codec is pretty good? I would think it would be since the C100 has a log setting that would require some post.
 
The great thing about the canon video line is there are endless menus for setting up the camera. But like Noel said, some of the Canon profiles are nice with minor tweaks right out of the box.

@ Erik. You should start with testing the wide DR setting and see if that will get you what you need. Can;t wait to see what you do with the camera and your feedback.

I'm hoping Cowpunk will chime in on the C100 soon too. He has some pretty nice profiles using canon setups.
 
Maybe there's some differences in cameras then because my C300 and C100 certainly do not produce a perfect match without adjustment. Log does hide those differences to some degree as it compresses the colour information but there are certainly still visible differences between the cameras.

While I totally appreciate the benefits of shooting in a Log gamma curve it isn't always the best choice, sometimes a baked in look makes more sense and the C100 and C300's abilities to create a suitable image are fantastic in that regard.
 
Ill add here, sure like others I'll use profiles if it suits the job. For a TVC however I do and would only use Canon log.
 
Thanks a million, Paul! This will sure come in handy. I intend to match colors between the C100 and a XF305. Considering the XF305 uses the same codec as the C300, do you think this may apply?
 
Mikungfu said:
I intend to match colors between the C100 and a XF305. Considering the XF305 uses the same codec as the C300, do you think this may apply?
Click to expand...

I've not used an XF300 so I can't be sure but I doubt the picture from the XF305 will be the same as the C100 out of the box as the custom picture options are going to be quite different. Thats not to say that it won't be possible to get them close though, I'm sure people must be mixing XF300 / 305's with C300's. Happy tweaking!
 
Noel Evans said:
Ill add here, sure like others I'll use profiles if it suits the job. For a TVC however I do and would only use Canon log.
Click to expand...

I've heard turning the sharpness down a little can help with the moire issues you can sometimes run into. Is this why you turn it down a little? What's the reasoning for you...?
 
Hey Paul, I was so excited to try out your PJcineHD profile, I loaded it onto my new C100 and took it on a lunch run. This was total run and gun. Exposure, focus and camerawork are all pretty deplorable. I was just interested to see how the colors looked.

I'm afraid I'm a charlatan who actually uses the standard profile on DSLRs, so things often look quite drab to me on the C100's LCD. I'm trying to find something that pops, but isn't quite as contrasty as the EOS Standard profile.

Here's the video. All handheld I'm afraid. Shot with just a 50mm 1.8. Yes it looks like it's straight outta 2009. Password is "password"

https://vimeo.com/54864856
 
Kyle theres a number of reasons I turn it down. The shadows are very clean on the C300, however we all know the C300 can still look great at high ISO's - in this case the noise seems cleaner at -7. Another reasoning, from what Ive seen at 0 setting there seems to be some sharpening added in camera so, Ive dialled it back to where I think its about neutral. Another reason as you suggest, at 0 I see some moire.

I'd like to go into a little bit of something else here as well if people dont mind me drifting a little OT. The C300 (same applies to C100) is a full raster 1080 CMOS camera, it also has a full 4:4:4 of RGB +G coming off the sensor. As far as 1080 cameras are concerned theres no other that does this. Simply put its the highest resolution 1080 camera on the market.

What Ive seen in post and this is not intended to strike fear, just passing along info, is that images which are shot sharp with a lot of fine detail, my Panasonic 58" plasma, my broadcast monitor and my computer screen all have an issue with it at times but, here's what Ive discovered. If not viewing the image in motion and on the sharpest images sometimes even in motion on all these monitors simultaneously, I see what we used to refer to as stair stepping like artifacts. I say "stair stepping like" specifically here because thats not what it is. I also see what we usually refer to as moire - again I say usually refer to because its something a little different going on. So, what is it?

Have you ever watched a high res clip on your iphone? (maybe different with the higher res. retina display but the 4s does it) If the video you're watching is high resolution you'll see faux moire and stair stepping from time to time. To explain this I'll add another element. Now we all know the 5dMkII has some severe moire at times, and we all know, at least we should be aware that this was caused by the pixel binning method of recording from the 21mp sensor. It simply throws lines and lines of info away to be able to record it. Of course once recorded you were stuck with it.

Jump back now to the Cinema EOS sensor in 1080. So what am I seeing on my monitors? Is the moire like the 5DMII? Certainly not and a completely opposite end of the scale "something" is occurring. Quite simply the C300 is putting out more resolved detail than my Plasma, my broadcast monitor and my 30" Mac display can see so what they need to do to show the image is simply do the same thing the 5DMKII did in recording. And thats to throw information away - result is the same. Actually the MAC display shows the footage with less because it can in 2560 x 1600 (mines always set to 2k), but its still there. Here's the kicker - theres nothing you can do about it.

What? Nothing? Well when you export the clip to a compressed codec, say for delivery to a network, you're losing a little so its usually gone. That can be disconcerting that its always there until you've got it down to the delivery format. If you have a really sharp image it will still be there on a master export say to prores 4:2:2 HQ. I find exporting to prores 4:2:2 (LT) not HQ takes care of a some and the image still looks seriously sharp. Hell all my TVCS are still delivered in SD anyway. You can even add a softening filter that will take care of it. Shooting with a promist 1/8 yields a gorgeous image on a C300.

There is one other thing Ive tried and its worked. Remember these are all my observations, its not based on the science. I can only report what I see. Next time you shoot something with some solid line detail thats sharp and showing this, try this little experiment. In your timeline rescale the shot to 150-200%. Oh he didnt say that did he? Well do it on that sharp image and tell me what you see. I see those things disappear completely, I also still see a sharp image. And all this at sharpness turned to -7.

As I said these have been my observations. A word of caution however. Scaling an image this way starting out with the C300's 4:2:2 doesnt seem to introduce any kind of new problem like banding etc. That may not be the case with the C100's AVCHD. I also dont recommend scaling images in this way as a general rule, however had a recent piece I scaled to 150% to do some effects where it came back to 100% then back to 150% to reveal and hide then reveal again. You'd never guess it was scaled in that way. Sharp right throughout.
 
drummondb said:
I'm afraid I'm a charlatan who actually uses the standard profile on DSLRs, so things often look quite drab to me on the C100's LCD. I'm trying to find something that pops, but isn't quite as contrasty as the EOS Standard profile.
Click to expand...

Of course it looks drab. Canon log / S LOG / CLOG / Red Raw all look drab. Its what you can then do to it in post that makes it so flexible. Turn on view assist and it will pop more on the EVF and LCD, and then you have more scope in post. A shot in Canon log will give far broader options and a better final shot (after post) than any of the other CP's.
 
Bumping this because it's still relevant to me. When matching the C100 and C300 using CPs other than Canon log, is it as simple as copying over something like CINE_01 from the C300 to the C100?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top