C100: How do you like the C100?

imdjay said:
Producer: i want to shoot 4k

Shooter: well, this is a comedy film, we have no SFX, is there any reason you want 4k?

P: It's futureproof, it looks great, i heard it's so much better than hd
Click to expand...

From there:

Shooter: You're right. Thats why shooting on an extremely high res camera is important these days. Canon recognised this with the C300 and C100 but rather than give us a 9 MP chip that delivered in actual fact a lot less than 4K res, they gave us a 9 MP chip that delivers arguably the highest res. image in 1080 cameras.

P: Thats interesting.

Shooter: Did you know that Skyfall was shot in a little over 1080?

P: What?

Shooter: Yeah, they shot on the Alexa. Its a great camera but pricey. If you want true 4k today we really need to look to the Epic or the C500 or the F5 which are similar rental prices but higher than the C300 / Scarlet options. We can look at those options if you like? Also, have you seen the new 4K tvs yet?

P: Thats why I want to future proof.

Shooter: Well these TVs have done that for you already.

P: What do you mean?

Shooter: Well they use an upres algorithm thats really amazing. Great 1080 looks incredible on these at 4k.

P: Really?

Shooter: Well the reality is they needed to do it. I mean who's going to buy a TV where all you can watch is true 4k and everything else looks like rubbish? Theres little to no 4K out there anyway and your not going to see it from the networks anytime soon. So why even buy a 4K set at all? Manufacturers arent that silly. They need a hook to get people buying now...

Shooter (cont): You're budget puts you in Scarlet / C300 territory and thats fine. Looking at the production and time constraints etc we could move faster and get good results by using smaller light units for our night shots.

Producer: It has to be done on time.

Shooter: Absolutely, lets go with the C300.
 
Oh, yeah I did get it, thanks for writing that up for me on facebook. I didn't know you were on here as well.
 
I should probably point out that I have had mine a couple of weeks now and it is everything I hoped it would be. I'm loving WideDR and am learning what can happen with CS6 on Windows that I just installed today. Good times!


Canon_C100.jpg
 
swanny said:
Ok, I thought there was a way to get 12 stops from it without a recorder.
Click to expand...

There is. Canon Log or Wide DR to internal SD-card (AVCHD).

The 'only' difference going external is greater color precision, 4:2:2 instead of 4:2:0, and an other choice of codec such as ProRes. Both internal and external recording is de facto 8 bit.

An external recorder like the Atomos Ninja 2 will allow you to compress your footage into ProRes HQ at around 220 Mbit/s and then save this in a 10 bit 'container'. But the recorded footage is of course still 8 bit.

While it might be comforting to know that you are getting the most out of the camera by going external, several tests have shown that it can be very difficult to tell the difference between internal AVCHD and external recording.

Greenscreen/bluescreen work are often brought up as examples where the extra precision will actually add a lot of value. It might also be a nice ace to have up the sleave if someone less informed insists on recording to another codec than AVCHD.

The Ninja 2 is a great device that offers other benefits too, but strictly looking at footage quality, you shouldn't loose a minute of sleep if you feel that you need to start out by recording internally.
 
I second MattDavis about the audio of the c100, i was very suprised how good it is.

Love the form factor, i do use an external monitor for some situation but having the LcD in the back for light rig and low profile is great.

i am still testing the camerae but the image is great so far.

the only thing that i am super happy about , is that cable coming from the grip top handle and going in the side of the camera. It seems like this design could have been easely avoided... I may be wrong though.
 
krick said:
the only thing that i am super happy about , is that cable coming from the grip top handle and going in the side of the camera. It seems like this design could have been easely avoided... I may be wrong though.
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side, at least you don't have two of them like the C300!
 
What's weird is how the Canons like c100 and c300 tend to hold their value and are even hard to find on ebay, but the Sonys which perhaps have greater image quality but much poorer ergonomics such as fs100, f3, f35, and event the f65 are selling in numbers for huge discounts on the open market.
 
Did a shoot today and i used the c300. Here are 3 quick things I like better about the c100.

1. The exposure bar
2. Larger battery slot to hold the larger 995 battery.
3. C100 fan is quieter (and hardly ever comes on) c300 fan is noticeable.

But in every other way the c300 is smoking.
 
I really want to like this camera, but why is it that I cannot find any impressive footage online?? I tested it out in B&H and it looked nice, but every time I see a sample online, it looks about 1% better than a 5DmkII/III...am I crazy? Someone mentioned that an external recorder is recommended for anything of quality and I'm starting to believe it..
 
NorBro said:
I really want to like this camera, but why is it that I cannot find any impressive footage online?? I tested it out in B&H and it looked nice, but every time I see a sample online, it looks about 1% better than a 5DmkII/III...am I crazy? Someone mentioned that an external recorder is recommended for anything of quality and I'm starting to believe it..
Click to expand...

1%?

wow

well, i just finished and uploaded this. try and tell me that it's only 1% better in the noise department and i'll come find you and shake a stick at you. You are after all only a river away from me.

 
Camera is still fairly new and people are still running it through it's paces. Maybe it's a certain genre of production you are seeking. If you took a liken to any c300 footage then that should be more comparable, which has been out longer therefore has more examples. Low light is unbelievably great as Darren has exampled in his post above. :)
 
Most of my footage is still in production, or is finished and is getting approval to be put up. You'll start seeing a lot from me, probably next month.

On top of that, even test footage is "real world". If it already looks better in test footage, what makes you think it won't be worlds better with proper lighting? I'm already to the point where I can't stand 1st gen Canon DSLR footage anymore. It looks like utter crap.
 
I want to see the camera panning/tilting/whipping around, I'd like to see some buildings and people..and how it handles colors and the detail you can see in the sky and grass...how it grades when crushing space, etc...I like the low light tests and charts and stuff, but I need more!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top