C100: How to get great results on the c100 in canon log? Overexpose Y'all!

R

RZE

Active member
If you have seen any of my threads, you may have seen me mention frustration with noise, clog, and middle grey on the c100. Since canon suggested underexposing middle grey to 32 IRE, that threw me for a while since the c100 frankly does not have the same shadow detail as the c300. I was getting very angry with the camera until I tested the highlight recovery, which is actually really solid, as long as you are not clipped at 109 IRE you can pull back detail really well. So to avoid getting a noisy image in canon log over expose and crush in post. The trick is don't clip, get close to clipping, but don't clip and all that detail will be there when you grade, even though the shots will look like crap at first. This is just a quick example of pulling back the highlights.
kjbnkj00086407.jpg00086407.jpg

I feel like to get the results of the c300 on the c100, you have to expose a little differently, expose higher then crush. I see a lot of c100 burnt highlights for online videos, grade y'all, pulling the highlights down, it take two seconds!
 
ummm, forgive my ignorance, whats the middle grey exposure thing you mentioned. (how do I know the exposre of that ? ) I typically shoot with WFM, keep everything in the middle, nothing touches the peak, then I do get great highlight result. Same as youve mentioned, I still need to pull the hightlight back, which is fairly easy. But I do get ONE thing confused about HIGHLIGHT, if you change the hue of it, you get awkward result

what I mean is, once you pull the sky back, if its less saturated, color not right or something, you change the hue of it, then once you play the clip after your change, the first frame and the rest of the frames start to look diffrently, you see a subtle change of color (like the first frame is the color you adjusted, but immediately the following frame changed back to its original color, and same for the rest of the clip), so you only get one frame correctly ( and when you pause anytime, the highlight changes to the color you adjusted).

the problem still exists when rendered.

this is awkward, but i dont know whether youve understand or not (sorry for my poor english).

see this video (the very first shot) you will know what I mean (go HD to see the problem)

problem is so prominent in the middle of the frame (where the castle is and around it)
 
Last edited:
Shawnvfx said:
see this video (the very first shot) you will know what I mean (go HD to see the problem)
Click to expand...

I went to that video to see what you were talking about and forgot what I was supposed to be looking for... that's a very cute video, Im not saying that in a condescending or off he cuff way, I just thought it was very cute. I bet the bride loved it.
 
Noel Evans said:
I went to that video to see what you were talking about and forgot what I was supposed to be looking for... that's a very cute video, Im not saying that in a condescending or off he cuff way, I just thought it was very cute. I bet the bride loved it.
Click to expand...

I take this as the highest honor received from a real professional.

thanks man. : )
 
Does this apply only to AVCHD or to footage captured with external recorders as well? As you might have guessed from some of my previous posts, I've struggled to expose correctly with the C100 (am now finally getting the hang of it), but I do find that the shadow detail is acceptable in Canon log in prores 422 off the Ninja, but that I'm much better off overexposing for AVCHD.

In fact, I wonder if the tests that show the two codecs to be similar in quality aren't overexposed and/or shot in gammas other than Canon log, because while the AVCHD implementation is awesome... it falls apart fast in Canon log.
 
You're going to get very little tonality at the top end if you push your over exposure.

I would say: expose in order to not have to lift middle gray in post. That's going to be my motto.

The curve becomes awfully flat, awfully fast...
 
Policar said:
Does this apply only to AVCHD or to footage captured with external recorders as well? As you might have guessed from some of my previous posts, I've struggled to expose correctly with the C100 (am now finally getting the hang of it), but I do find that the shadow detail is acceptable in Canon log in prores 422 off the Ninja, but that I'm much better off overexposing for AVCHD.

In fact, I wonder if the tests that show the two codecs to be similar in quality aren't overexposed and/or shot in gammas other than Canon log, because while the AVCHD implementation is awesome... it falls apart fast in Canon log.
Click to expand...

I only really shoot prores, the shots above were prores,

The shadow detail is not acceptable even 422 profess as far as I'm concerned, there is at least a stop of extra detail in the darks on the c300. To get the same shadow detail you have to overexpose.
 
this has me wondering too. i feel that the C100 gets noisy (in its own way) more than i expected it too with all the raving about its low light ability. still the noise i see isn't as bad as other cameras ive own. i love the C100 but feel that im still not getting the best out of it yet.

on another note to shawnvfx...
your video was probably the most original, clever & touching plus beautifully shot as i have seen for a wedding type of videos. did you shoot that on the day of the wedding or on an auxiliary day? like noel said im sure the bride was pleased as could be with that.

really and exceptional job!

david
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top