Here's just my findings from the C200- shooting in 8bit straight out the box appears soft when zooming in 100%. Shooting raw and adding +3 sharpness in the Canon raw software produces an extremely sharp image. I primarily shoot 4k 8 but, and shoot in wideDR with +3 sharpness and it's extremely sharp- no issues at all. I can zoom in when editing and everything is as expected. I think people want "cinema softness" and that's the image you get straight out the box.
C200: Does the C200 Produce a Sharp Image?
- Thread starter dharty
- Start date
Thanks for the info. I will be ordering my C200 Monday and will try your + 3 sharpness suggestion. A C100 user posted a video of sharpness tests and also found a + 3-5 in-camera sharpness worked best for him.
It is simple, Panasonic is known for it's aggresive sharpening, like Sony, and we don't need to zoom our videos to 300%, we just need great picture, and C200 will give you better picture than any Panasonic or Sony, let alone ergonomics and DPAF. I'm sure you can make much sharper mp4 if you need it, using just sharpness setting..
And btw, 1080p mode in C200 is very bad, I don't recommend that, and I would like to lock it somehow not to use it accidentaly. Because if you use 120p and when you disable slow motion, it will go 1080p..
And btw, 1080p mode in C200 is very bad, I don't recommend that, and I would like to lock it somehow not to use it accidentaly. Because if you use 120p and when you disable slow motion, it will go 1080p..
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Why anyone shoots 1080p on a C200? Always shoot UHD and edit on a 1080 timeline. I have been forced to shoot 1080 twice since I had the camera, client strongly requested 1080, no UHD so I did. But I always shoot UHD for everything and am moving toward shooting Cinema RAW Light more and more, it looks so much better than the .MP4
puredrifting
Major Contributor
^ You could lie you're shooting 1080p
Well, if I hand off the card to the producer and their editor whines that the camera guy shot UHD, wouldn't be good. If I am editing it, of course, UHD is fine but you do have to give clients what they ask for or they won't re-hire you for the next one.
Run&Gun
Veteran
This reminds me of stunts I used to see guys try to pull off like when a client would request a D600 and they'd show up and shoot with a 400 or 400A. "They'll never know the difference". Except when they would show up with a set-up card and there was no where to load it. And the guys that would try to pass off HDX-900's as VariCam's.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
Stupid is as stupid does ;-)
getandrewnow
New member
I tested the C200 for about a week and found the 4k MP4 image not sharp enough. Background: I am a C100ii owner/user. I love the image. Plenty sharp and clean, especially when I record 4:2:2 external. I was hoping that the C200 would give me a similar quality image, just at 4K. I was hoping that I would be able to punch on the C200 4k image and match the C100ii. Alas, it was not sharp enough for me to do that. I think it is a nice image, but not sharp enough.
The C100ii is so sharp and clean because it oversamples: it uses a 4K sensor to create a 1080 image. Alas the C200 does NOT oversample: it uses a 4k sensor to create a 4k image. The EVA1 is noticeable sharper because, like the C100ii, it oversamples: it has a 5.7k sensor to create a 4k image.
The C100ii is so sharp and clean because it oversamples: it uses a 4K sensor to create a 1080 image. Alas the C200 does NOT oversample: it uses a 4k sensor to create a 4k image. The EVA1 is noticeable sharper because, like the C100ii, it oversamples: it has a 5.7k sensor to create a 4k image.
That was exactly my impression at first. But, the first time I mixed C100II and C200 footage in post, I realized that C100 doesn't have that detail and C200 higher DR makes it look like it's softer. When I sharpened C200 image, it just pops out and everything looked much more detailed than C100 II, but in the same time soft and natural, not digitally sharpened like Sony or Panasonic..
npm
Well-known member
In body sharpening or in post?
If we punch in C200 4K (and C300 II 4K) to 1080p 1:1, we can post-sharpen / enhance contrast (increase acutance) and it can look pretty good. If this is tried with a wide shot, the detail simply isn't there and it's going to look 'low detail'. If we try to sharpen too much, it will look very digital due to increased aliasing (sharpening reduces anti-aliasing blur). We need a minimum of a 5.7K sensor to produce good actual detail 4K pixels.
C200 in RAW is pretty much detailed like any other 4k camera, no matter which sensor it has and you can sharpen it ridiculously, just look at some Rubidium videos, and that's youtube. It is just in camera post production of mp4 files and you can play with the settings if you're not satisfied. And maybe we really cannot get 1080p 1:1 unnaturally sharp like Panasonic and Sony, but I really don't need that, one of the reasons I don't use those cameras is exactly that, no matter how low you go on sharpnes, they act like there is on-chip sharpening before it does any in-camera post. Try to sharpen your LOG or LOG3 footage and it will look much better and more natural than "counting pixels" on other cameras. I bet if you compare GH5 with Red and Alexa, if will be sharper, GH4 is way sharper than EVA1 1:1, look at the latest Andyax video. "Sharper" doesn't mean better no matter what, and 5.7k doesn't mean much for sharpness, because it depends on downsampling, that's why we have better 120p on C300 II with croping than on C200 without it...
Last edited:
We need to be clear in differentiating between actual detail/information, as can be measured simply with a resolution test chart, and apparent sharpness, or acutance, which can be increased with image processing in post. An anti-aliasing filter effectively blurs an image, and a sharpen filter effectively de-blurs an image. The problem with over-sharpening is aliasing. That's why you don't like the GH4 etc. The pixels dance, exhibiting digital crunchiness: not smooth etc. The C200 (and C300 II) and all 4K sensors producing 4K after deBayer, capture less actual detail/information than a higher resolution sensor which oversamples and downfilters to 4K. Aliasing is a symptom of information loss (both the C200 and C300 II have significant aliasing shooting a 4K test chart). That's math and physics, backed up by real-world results shooting resolution charts. Even with sophisticated deBayering in post a 4K sensor can never produce a full resolution 4K image: oversampling is required: we must sample greater than the limit frequency, not equal to the limit frequency (Nyquist) + the Bayer system will never be perfect due to reconstruction issues (color aliasing).
Red and Alexa typically use strong optical anti-aliasing filters, so they tend to appear softer. This will reduce or eliminate aliasing in most cases, and when downsampled to 1080p, produce some of the most organic looking images on the market. Plenty of detail, even in wide shots, without digital crunchiness.
The Canon advantage right now is color for skintones, DPAF, and native lens selection. If one needs to crop 1:1 with good detail and low aliasing, then Red, EVA1, F65, Alexa65 etc. (even GH4/GH5), are much better tools than the C200/C300II/C700. We used to also shoot on the GH4 and A7S/A7SII and sold them all as Canon's color and DPAF work better for our needs. Even picked up the soft-ish 1080p 80D over a GH5 (travel/compact shooting): color and AF are more important than absolute detail when shooting people. For landscape, wide and ultrawide 4K shots, the GH5 (and even GH4) are superior tools for some applications.