FS7: Sony FX9 v Canon C500 mkII

[jcs]

Barry- I wasn't replying to your test in the example from CVP, other than using +5 comparing the FX9 to the C500 II. Sorry if you thought I was somehow critiquing your test. My C300 II did the same thing re: ghosting skin, though it's possible Canon may have improved the C500 II and CVP made mistakes with camera settings and/or LUTs/post. Until someone shows how the C500 II handles skintones at +5 doing everything correctly, we won't know for sure.

The image I posted from the AF test showed that even with proper exposure, skintones blow to white early on the C500 II vs. the FX9. Agree it's not a big deal, however this is a camera vs. camera thread, and until there's contradicting evidence showing the C500 II doing better than the FX9 at +5 on skintones, I think it's fair and reasonable to give the FX9 the win for IQ, as most agree that in other cases the cameras are pretty close in IQ. IMO the FX9 has more character/mojo in color (S-Cinetone and SLog3) vs. the C500 II, however that's just opinion based on something subjective. Skintones blowing early to white is not subjective (again, might be possible to fix with different settings/LUTs/post or a future FW update): this affects any high DR shot even when exposed correctly.

 

[jcs]

Liam, thanks for your time. I wonder what kind of person downvotes this. Is it controversial? Or do you have a hidden enemy here?

I am making a documentary with lots of highlight (clouds) in it, this will have effect on my grading for sure.

Sorry, that was an iPhone accident. I wondered the same thing, then saw it was attributed to my account. Will upvote one of his other posts to offset.

DONE: upvoted 2 posts.

 

[Barry G]

Well, then don’t post hastily prepared tests when “the sun is in and out of clouds”. You are doing a good job of shooting good images. And i think those go a good way. But don’t post a hasty test as evidence, and expect to stop misinformation, as a hasty test can actually cause misinformation.

I posted it because it was timely to the discussion. I publically questioned whether it was wise to post, and stated what was wrong with it. Some people are capable of a reasonable response to that (versus say viewing a very obviously questionable test, and then quoting it as if it was carved in stone by lightning). You are free to ignore it.

 

[jcs]

Some folks feel this discussion is adversarial- it shouldn't be. If those with a C500 II have evidence that the CVP test is flawed regarding skintones blowing to white early at +5, they can easily show thread readers how to properly set up the camera to provide +5 and not blow out skintones. Then perhaps let the CVP folks know so they won't do it again in the future (if there was in fact a mistake made).

 

[NorBro]

Someone should create a grading thread and offer one file of the highest quality possible - for download - of whatever they would like (preferably an interesting shot with dynamic range or a human) with some exposure ramps within the recorded clip. Then people could post screenshots of their own grades.

You used to find a lot of that on BMCuser/BM forum, and although it will not put an end to any debate, it would probably be more appealing and interactive.

 

[Guest]

I posted it because it was timely to the discussion. I publically questioned whether it was wise to post, and stated what was wrong with it. Some people are capable of a reasonable response to that (versus say viewing a very obviously questionable test, and then quoting it as if it was carved in stone by lightning). You are free to ignore it.

You are over reacting to jcs, and even misunderstanding him. But seems your plan of ignoring it all is probably best going forward.

Congrats on you C500ii! I’m looking forward to getting to shoot with one someday too.

 

[Guest]

Someone should create a grading thread and offer one file of the highest quality possible - for download - of whatever they would like (preferably an interesting shot with dynamic range or a human) with some exposure ramps within the recorded clip. Then people could post screenshots of their own grades.

You used to find a lot of that on BMCuser/BM forum, and although it will not put an end to any debate, it would probably be more appealing and interactive.

Why don’t you do it?

 

[Liam Hall]

Liam, thanks for your time. I wonder what kind of person downvotes this. Is it controversial? Or do you have a hidden enemy here?

I am making a documentary with lots of highlight (clouds) in it, this will have effect on my grading for sure.

Maybe someone did it because I joked about voting down James and the troll a few posts back - I don't take those votes personally and certainly don't take them seriously. Good luck with the doc.

 

[Liam Hall]

Someone should create a grading thread and offer one file of the highest quality possible - for download - of whatever they would like (preferably an interesting shot with dynamic range or a human) with some exposure ramps within the recorded clip. Then people could post screenshots of their own grades.

You used to find a lot of that on BMCuser/BM forum, and although it will not put an end to any debate, it would probably be more appealing and interactive.

If I get time tomorrow, I'll post something. Not promising though...

 

[NorBro]

Why don’t you do it?

I don't think I should be the one creating a thread for the cameras of interest here, C500 Mark II/FX9, two cameras I've never even seen in real life yet.

I can add some 6K ProRes/H.265 from the Z CAM though...soon.

 

[Guest]

I can add some 6K ProRes/H.265 from the Z CAM though...soon.

Very cool!

 

[jcs]

Maybe someone did it because I joked about voting down James and the troll a few posts back - I don't take those votes personally and certainly don't take them seriously. Good luck with the doc.

Looks like you do take it personally with constant ad hominem. In any case, this is a public forum: professional behavior matters. Always in one’s best interest to conduct oneself with respect for others, even when disagreeing. Disrespectful behavior is another form of projection: reveals things one may not want revealed in public about one’s self esteem and self confidence.

 

[Barry G]

What a difference a day makes. Killed off the last half of my lunch break and reshot my "on the Deck" XF-AVC overexposure charts, with the proper white balance, in CLog2. I've posted the results where they belong, over in the C500 thread:

The nutshell is this. White clips at 5 stops over. Colors begin to clip at 5.5 stops over. Skintones are not clipped at 5.5 stops. I'd comfortably rate this camera as having 4-4.5 stops of highlight latitude. Its a very good result. I've shot a RAW version, and if there is anything to report, I'll let you know. ( this exposure ramp goes from 0 to 5.5 stops in half stop increments I shot 0 to 6 stops, but the camera waveform doesn't match what I see in FCPX, resulting in my starting exposure possibly being 1/2 stop too dark, so I eliminated that clip from the results, and now the ramp starts at the correct exposure. )

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...f-view&p=1986815135&viewfull=1#post1986815135

 

[puredrifting]

At least in FCPX, applying a LUT will hard clip the color values and the information can't be recovered by secondary color corrections. Canon's V1 REC709 LUT's all had the problem of transforming the image in a way that would cause color channels to either clip or be crushed. The V2 LUT's appear to roll off the saturation so that you maintain some color definition, but you still have the problem if desaturating the superwhites and blacks.

Are the V2 LUTs for all of the Canons or are they customized only for the C500 MKII? I haven't been able to find a source that definitively says?

 

[NorBro]

It's always best to experiment as many kind of LUTs can be used for your camera; some great, some not so great.

People use a variety of ARRI LOG-C LUTs on everything. I might combine a Panasonic V-Log LUT and some random RED LUT at different percentages and they could look great together. You can't always trust everything that's recommended as some of the most technically accurate workflows have set me up for some of the worst results.

 

[Guest]

If you would have told me a few years ago that in 2020 Norbro would be retired and giving Dan advice...

 

[NorBro]

If you would have told me a few years ago that in 2020 Norbro would be retired and giving Dan advice...

You're obsessed with me, lol.

Dan and I have complimented each other about learning things from one another over the years.

 

[Guest]

Dan is an establishment. A legend. It is cool to see people that were the youngies or newbs a while back leveling up.

 

[Barry G]

Are the V2 LUTs for all of the Canons or are they customized only for the C500 MKII? I haven't been able to find a source that definitively says?

In theory, clog,2,3 are identical between cameras in terms of color and code value levels. I’ve tried the v2 on my c300 Mark ii and they seem very close to the c500, although I thing skintones are rendering a little more yellow. Clog2 has that mystery extension at the top of the curve, and I think that’s to allow for future headroom if they ever push past 15 stops, but otherwise, for the most part, the LUTs will work with any camera that shoots the appropriate log.

 

[Guest]

In theory, clog,2,3 are identical between cameras in terms of color and code value levels. I’ve tried the v2 on my c300 Mark ii and they seem very close to the c500, although I thing skintones are rendering a little more yellow. Clog2 has that mystery extension at the top of the curve, and I think that’s to allow for future headroom if they ever push past 15 stops, but otherwise, for the most part, the LUTs will work with any camera that shoots the appropriate log.

They approximating an ACEs compatible log setup with clog3?

I always like clog on the 1Dc back in the day, but never kept up with the updates.