C100: So did we ever figure out best practices for shooting LOG on the C100 mk1?

When I had a C100 & Ninja Blade, I saw no discernible difference in the footage unless, as others have said, I had to do a ton of grading or effects work (something I just don't find myself doing too often if I'm being honest). The major benefit for me was if I had a quick turnaround I could compress ProRes much quicker than the AVCHD straight from the camera.
 
Can I ask what we consider a lot of grading or where you start to see the avchd break down vs prores from a recorder? Some kind of real world “for instance”. More room to lift blacks/dark areas without noise? Less banding in other areas if things are pushed?
 
You'll know when it's too much when the image falls apart whether through lines or blocks or any other visible artifacts...especially when they start to "dance" on the screen and are visibly distracting (like maybe too much noise at high ISOs, which is why the debate of low-light acceptability exists).
 
Thanks. I’ve seen some of that already with the internal wide dr. Some I’ve backed off on or suppressed, some I’ve decided to live with. I guess that’s just a judgment call.
 
I remember buying our C100 when it first came out and all of the DSLR internet celebs saying that if you paired it with an external recorder it was the same as the C300, so I rented an Atomos Ninja and did a a bunch of tests, including pushing the grade way harder than I ever would in the real world (ie. shooting Tungsten WB and grading it back to Daylight) and there was literally no quality improvement, I had to zoom in to 400% just to see a difference - but even then it was just a difference, not an improvement. The only thing I could see was that the pattern of the grain was slightly different and only noticeable at 400%.

I ended up transitioning to just shooting internally and at WideDR. I probably shot LOG for about a year until I finally realized that I almost always graded the image nearly back to the WideDR look - so why not just save the hassle and start there. I hate hoarding in all areas of life - including digitally. No reason to make things more of a hassle just for that 1% chance that just maaaaybe I might need that tiny bit more information to save a highlight on one shot.

Three cameras later (C100mk2, C500, C200) and if I'm not shooting raw, I'm still shooting WideDR for everything. From my experience it's not only a great neutral look, but it still protects the highlights and gives you a more pleasing, less noisy starting image. Unless you're shooting on something like a C300MK2 that has a much beefier internal codec, I don't see any practical advantage of shooting LOG internally.
 
chris f said:
I remember buying our C100 when it first came out and all of the DSLR internet celebs saying that if you paired it with an external recorder it was the same as the C300, so I rented an Atomos Ninja and did a a bunch of tests, including pushing the grade way harder than I ever would in the real world (ie. shooting Tungsten WB and grading it back to Daylight) and there was literally no quality improvement, I had to zoom in to 400% just to see a difference - but even then it was just a difference, not an improvement. The only thing I could see was that the pattern of the grain was slightly different and only noticeable at 400%.

I ended up transitioning to just shooting internally and at WideDR. I probably shot LOG for about a year until I finally realized that I almost always graded the image nearly back to the WideDR look - so why not just save the hassle and start there. I hate hoarding in all areas of life - including digitally. No reason to make things more of a hassle just for that 1% chance that just maaaaybe I might need that tiny bit more information to save a highlight on one shot.

Three cameras later (C100mk2, C500, C200) and if I'm not shooting raw, I'm still shooting WideDR for everything. From my experience it's not only a great neutral look, but it still protects the highlights and gives you a more pleasing, less noisy starting image. Unless you're shooting on something like a C300MK2 that has a much beefier internal codec, I don't see any practical advantage of shooting LOG internally.
Click to expand...

Chris, did you ever try keying green screen? I found no difference unless I could "break" the AVCHD codec, which isn't hard if you know how (shoot wide shots of hundreds of tree with leaves rustling in the breeze, the AVCHD falls apart while the Prores HQ holds it together). When I tried keying the AVCHD with green screen, the Prores HQ was much easier to get clean edges with.
 
Sounds like a case by case or even shot by shot kinda basis for whether it’s worth it, then.

Speaking of green screen we have noticed this very strange phenomenon with the c100 in a particular studio where a certain company’s bright red shirts have a heavy black outline where the red meets the green. Never quite figured it out. edge lights never seemed to quite kill it. Maybe just too much adjacent color contrast for this poor little cam?
 
Last edited:
Josh Bass said:
Sounds like a case by case or even shot by shot kinda basis for whether it’s worth it, then.

Speaking of green screen we have noticed this very strange phenomenon with the c100 in a particular studio where a certain company’s bright red shirts have a heavy black outline where the red meets the green. Never quite figured it out. edge lights never seemed to quite kill it. Maybe just too much adjacent color contrast for this poor little cam?
Click to expand...

Were you seeing that on the camera monitor or only in post when doing the actual key? I won't profess to be a talented compositor but you do see all kinds of weird edge artifacts when doing green screen keying and most good compositors use multiple keyers to reduce certain artifacts, I don't think there is the one perfect keying tool. I take it this is with the AVCHD?
 
Yeah in post. But also in the raw footage before trying to pull the key. Probably internal...was a while ago that I edited the piece I’m thinking of so not sure.
 
puredrifting said:
Chris, did you ever try keying green screen? I found no difference unless I could "break" the AVCHD codec, which isn't hard if you know how (shoot wide shots of hundreds of tree with leaves rustling in the breeze, the AVCHD falls apart while the Prores HQ holds it together). When I tried keying the AVCHD with green screen, the Prores HQ was much easier to get clean edges with.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think so. I think I've only done like 4 green screen projects ever - 2 of which were with DSLRs (yikes), 1 with the C100, and 1 with a Red. Definitely not my wheelhouse.
 
chris f said:
No, I don't think so. I think I've only done like 4 green screen projects ever - 2 of which were with DSLRs (yikes), 1 with the C100, and 1 with a Red. Definitely not my wheelhouse.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately every interview I've ever shot for a bunch of Fox animated show interviews over the past decade or two were all green screen because the producers typically want to key live interviews over the animated scenes the directors, animators, producers and voice talent are talking about. So that means hundreds of green screen interviews over the the years. Also am wrapping up shooting a documentary on Sergio Mendes that I shot around 40 green screen interviews for, here, east coast and Brazil. Shot one with Common the other day, and have a few more. I hooked up my Ninja Blade to my C200 as this is a 1080 film and it looked great. Green screen for interviews is so easy I can do it in my sleep, it's actually kind of boring. No BGs to light and the screen is always the same and for this film, we stablished our look for the talent two years ago so I use the same key/fill/rim lighting for all of them. Super easy. The C100 with the Blade shot beautiful green screen interviews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top