C100: how much would you pay for a hardware upgrade? 60P

James0b57 said:
I am seeing some lo-fi banding, is this the additional compression of the stills upload? - Thanks
Click to expand...
Lol. Are you really pixel peeping a compressed image recompressed here on dvxuser? Really? Low level banding to a image posted on a forum? LOL! Come on!

i see it in edit and it looks great considering its shot avchd and stretched that far.
 
dustylense said:
Lol. Are you really pixel peeping a compressed image recompressed here on dvxuser? Really? Low level banding to a image posted on a forum? LOL! Come on!

i see it in edit and it looks great considering its shot avchd and stretched that far.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that answers my question perfectly. And there was no need to pixel peep to see the compression artifacts, it was pretty obvious. It usually is on dvxuser.
 
Its a Jpeg frame grab that measures 356KB that is compressed even further here on DVXuser to 37KB. And you're talking about compression artifacts? Trust me, I was astonished at how far I pushed this image in the NLE. There is even a mask in FCPX on the talents face. It stretched quite far. Take a look at the captured image again. A windshield showing the overcast sky! Then the final grade.

Man, I work time to time with 80 megapixel medium format backs in 16 bit raw. I work everyday with 5dmk3 raw images. I am quite impressed how the C100 held up pushing this grab this far. Looks great on my 200 inch DLP projection system.

Try this.... Take your best DSLR (even your 1Dc of you wish) and put the camera on "small jpeg" still capture (or closest to 1080res). Wait for an overcast day and go shoot though a windshield at somebody sitting in the driver seat. Make sure the sky is completely reflected in the windshield. Match my ungraded look here when you expose. THen see just how far you can go with getting the final look I got with this image without any noise reduction. I guarantee a fail.
 
dustylense said:
Its a Jpeg frame grab that measures 356KB that is compressed even further here on DVXuser to 37KB. And you're talking about compression artifacts? Trust me, I was astonished at how far I pushed this image in the NLE. There is even a mask in FCPX on the talents face. It stretched quite far. Take a look at the captured image again. A windshield showing the overcast sky! Then the final grade.

Man, I work time to time with 80 megapixel medium format backs in 16 bit raw. I work everyday with 5dmk3 raw images. I am quite impressed how the C100 held up pushing this grab this far. Looks great on my 200 inch DLP projection system.

Try this.... Take your best DSLR (even your 1Dc of you wish) and put the camera on "small jpeg" still capture (or closest to 1080res). Wait for an overcast day and go shoot though a windshield at somebody sitting in the driver seat. Make sure the sky is completely reflected in the windshield. Match my ungraded look here when you expose. THen see just how far you can go with getting the final look I got with this image without any noise reduction. I guarantee a fail.
Click to expand...

What the heck? I am on your side. Yeah, uploading images through the forum add very appalling amounts of compression, which helps keep the servers from getting clogged. I never said any statement bout the actual footage, I only asked, since you didn't mention or denote the low quality of the stills, as most of the time we do.
 
James0b57 said:
What the heck? I am on your side. Yeah, uploading images through the forum add very appalling amounts of compression, which helps keep the servers from getting clogged. I never said any statement bout the actual footage, I only asked, since you didn't mention or denote the low quality of the stills, as most of the time we do.
Click to expand...
I'm not not on your side as well. I'm putting the info out there for others as well.
Everybody should know about the low quality of grabs uploaded here without even mentioning it.
 
dustylense said:
Take a look at the captured image again. A windshield showing the overcast sky! Then the final grade.
Click to expand...
The upload quality of the jpegs, makes looking at this grading example less useful. Using flickr, and then paste an embed link, helps with getting higher quality screen shots.

Like this (ctrl+v):

Sky Swimming by Thomas Hawk, on Flickr

dustylense said:
Try this.... Take your best DSLR (even your 1Dc of you wish) and put the camera on "small jpeg" still capture (or closest to 1080res). Wait for an overcast day and go shoot though a windshield at somebody sitting in the driver seat. Make sure the sky is completely reflected in the windshield. Match my ungraded look here when you expose. THen see just how far you can go with getting the final look I got with this image without any noise reduction. I guarantee a fail.
Click to expand...
Yes, that would be a very similar result, as the jpeg would be a compressed lower resolution 8bit image.

Anytime a compressed 2 megapixel (HD) 8bit image is pushed, it will begin to exhibit undesirable qualities, but especially in Log, and especially with low contrast images which are intended to be contrasty in the final grade. What I am saying is, and should be, common knowledge.
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
The upload quality of the jpegs, makes looking at this grading example less useful. Using flickr, and then paste an embed link, helps with getting higher quality screen shots.

Like this (ctrl+v):

Sky Swimming by Thomas Hawk, on Flickr


Yes, that would be a very similar result, as the jpeg would be a compressed lower resolution 8bit image.

Anytime a compressed 2 megapixel (HD) 8bit image is pushed, it will begin to exhibit undesirable qualities, but especially in Log, and especially with low contrast images which are intended to be contrasty in the final grade. What I am saying is, and should be, common knowledge.
Click to expand...
Again. I work constantly with 80 MP backs. I used to use a 4x5 digital back that made 600mb files in 16bits.
My post of the screen shots was to say "hey I took this high key image and pushed it this far" while being impressed with with it's performance when a standard of quality for me is a 16bit 80mp capture off CCD. Or back in the day when I have 8x10 film drum scanned to 800mb files. So looking at the master of this C100 shoton my 27in display, then on my 55inch then to my 200in DLP projection and saying, "Hey, I'm impressed considering that is 420 8bits". Coming from motion cameras like the HVX200, 5d's, gh2 and 3, XF canon, Af100, BMCC, to the C100... I'm extremely impressed with how far a C100 420 8bit can go. Again, considering that I work constantly with 16bit 80mp medium format backs that is....

So is the C100 worth it's price? You bet ya! Would I pay for an upgrade? I don't feel I need an upgrade considering the camera is DV digic III. Canon will eventually introduce DV digic IV and I bet it will be fantastic. But I'm more than pleased with the C100's performance and it's implementation of AVCHD and its processing....
 
I agree Dusty, I bought the camera for what it does and for that price point. I admit I waited for the $1000 price drop before I felt it was a decent value. The only other camera I considered was the Sony FS700 with similar issues of viewfinder and codec. But I wanted something smaller and compact and after using the C300 I felt the C100 fit a need for my doc work. But I am also using it for corporate and commercial work. Because of my investment in Canon glass I will be waiting for Canon's next offering with a new Digic IV chip, but will be putting this camera to work shooting both in camera AVCHD and to a Ninja 2 for ProRes files.

I really don't understand people picking up this camera and saying " It doesn't match up to my Red Epic or Alexa or whatever". I worked on many national commercials where they were using an Epic and supplementing a Canon 5D II for Broll shots and they were just happy as could be with the footage (even though there were compromises). People have been spoiled by the lowering of price point and expect the world for very little money.

That feels better.
 
greenheron said:
I really don't understand people picking up this camera and saying " It doesn't match up to my Red Epic or Alexa or whatever". I worked on many national commercials where they were using an Epic and supplementing a Canon 5D II for Broll shots and they were just happy as could be with the footage (even though there were compromises). People have been spoiled by the lowering of price point and expect the world for very little money.
Click to expand...
Who is saying that?
 
ok, so remember in my OP where i said not to blow things out of proportion?

keep it to that. if your opinion is not to have an opinion of how much a hardware upgrade is worth, that's fine, but keep it at that without bleeding into the same old side topics of general c100 yay's and nay's.

this was a simple exercise in how much a certain feature might be worth to people, thats it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top