C100: Yeesh maaaan

Peter C. said:
It’s kind of a waste filming with a cinema camera in existing indoor lights.
Click to expand...
Peter, I've wrestled with this a lot over the years, historically providing value through lighting rather than the camera. But now there are many situations where even existing office lighting and a modern cinema camera would give better results than any artificial lighting/c100. If overseeing a corporate project, I'd hire Dustin with Alexa mini and zero film lights over someone with a c100 and all the lights in the world. This is all also partly because office spaces these days often have "cool" lighting in house vs. the drop ceiling panels of old.

I shot this, loading up on film lighting, along with the respectable C200 image vimeo.com/1122716303

I'd love to somehow repeat this exact project, but with a much smaller lighting set up, as well as something like an Alexa mini LF or Alexa 35, then compare results. Lighting van/c200 combo has provided some extreme value over the years. The actual amount of time and effort to fight a lot of these office spaces is starting to feel more burdensome with every shoot, where as it seems like the current trend is a much more "as is" approach. It's also much easier to get projects over the line that have fewer disruptions to a workplace due to a smaller film equipment footprint. Basically, I used to agree with what you're saying but don't really anymore, in terms of a blanket statement of cinema camera is only worth it if it comes with lighting.

JustinBrown said:
I think the image is pretty good… it’s just kind of a bummer that I can be in a well lit space and exposed to the right, and solid blacks, such as a television screen still show noise, that then gets compressed, resulting in macroblocking/posterization.
Click to expand...
This isn't meant to be negative and is intended as a relief, but if it's acceptable for a project to green light the use of a c100, then all issues associated with its image are also acceptable. It also likely means you're in a good place where the camera doesn't matter and you can focus on the brief.
 
Last edited:
rob norton said:
This isn't meant to be negative and is intended as a relief, but if it's acceptable for a project to green light the use of a c100, then all issues associated with its image are also acceptable. It also likely means you're in a good place where the camera doesn't matter and you can focus on the brief.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I hope that is the case.

I have two projects that I am working on at the moment. The C100mk2 is intended for the “outdoors” one, which is a short bio piece about a cemetery caretaker I know who looks after this old pioneer cemetery that they let return to prairie every year. Sort of a “cost of preserving memory” kind of thing. I don’t see the limitations of the camera being an issue here, though I had hoped to be there during the foggy morning blue hour and evening golden hour because the place looks fantastic at those times. The morning might be too low contrast for the AVCHD+noise though. I’ll need to go out there once the weather is warmer to really get a sense.

So far it seems like if I boost the iso up, and then dial it back I would be better off than trying to capture a balanced exposure at the same light level, but we’ll see.
 
An old camera filming an old caretaker of an old cemetery. It might work. Btw heard the trend of 2026 is retro 1080 cameras as a reaction against AI type content that looks to good it doesn't feel real any more.
 
I don't know if this would make you feel better or worse but I was watching this video comparing a range of cameras from inexpensive to really expensive. It's not a scientific lab test but spoiler alert there wasn't a huge difference.

 
Peter C. said:
I don't know if this would make you feel better or worse but I was watching this video comparing a range of cameras from inexpensive to really expensive. It's not a scientific lab test but spoiler alert there wasn't a huge difference.

Click to expand...
As someone who very recently has been testing all of my cameras against each other in an extensive "lab" setting (consistent lighting, lenses, exposure, processing, etc.) I am inclined to agree.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
As someone who very recently has been testing all of my cameras against each other in an extensive "lab" setting (consistent lighting, lenses, exposure, processing, etc.) I am inclined to agree.
Click to expand...
Only the window test you could tell the dynamic range was superior in the Arri, but I was surprised at the other tests. Naturally production cameras have a whole host of features and interface that is essential but we often think that if we could afford a more expensive camera all our problems would magically disappear. Also its not as clear cut as this video makes it appear, I've seen others comparing C200 vs C70, the older sensors can be less forgiving if not exposed in an optimal way that a situation would call for. For example in the window test if you retained the highlights with the other cameras to match the Arri the rest of the image would look horrible.
 
You only need to see the first 60 seconds of this video to demonstrate that a pretty cheap FX6 can quite easily be matched with an ARRI Mini LF. Most shooters' footage I get to edit these days, if exposed correctly, can produce pretty reasonable results. The main thing I see between cameras that effects the end result is dynamic range in extreme conditions. The greater the DR, the easier it is to recover highlights and shadows. If the scene has, let's say a six stop range, then most cameras can handle that without any issues. Snow, harsh sunlight with deep shadows, or as we used to call it 'Soot and Whitewash' scenes and strong backlit scenes is where the wider DR cameras shine. I just know with my humble FX6 and A7iv pairing the A7iv slaughters the FX6 in extreme contrast wide dynamic range scenarios. I don't need to measure it, I can see it on the timeline. 11.5 to 12.9 stops is a big difference. And if you are using Hi-base of 12800 on the FX6 try 10 stops!

Chris Young

 
I find most side by side comparisons really difficult to see any differences at all.

At the same time, if I made up that certain videos on my website were shot on an Alexa 35, I wouldn't be offended if anyone was shocked or surprised.

I can't quantify it but I think with complete projects, we also get a feeling that side by sides don't touch on. Like a TV series over time, or even a two minute video where 30 seconds in feels weaker than the opening sequence.
 
This video does a good job comparing the C70 vs FX3. The dynamic ranges and recovery sections you can see the difference.
 
cyvideo said:
The main thing I see between cameras that effects the end result is dynamic range in extreme conditions. The greater the DR, the easier it is to recover highlights and shadows.
Click to expand...
It's 100% this. ^

All my cameras look great when exposed properly and a scene is lit. Or they look great when shooting outside and just properly exposing for middle grey and/or the scene.

And even when the camera doesn't quite have as much dynamic range as the top end cameras, it's choosing where you want to expose. Are you going to push some shadows down into black intentionally? Or adjust your ISO to shift stops up or down?

I've also been more impressed with the noise/grain that some cameras present over others.

The Alexa Mini definitely has more pleasing noise/grain when pushed hard than my Canon cameras do. (Well...of course, right?)

Surprisingly, my Komodo also performs better in the noise/grain department than my Canon cameras as well. It seems to be a bit more uniform with less "splotchy" character.
 
Here are two love letters, one to the fx6 (phenomenal talent Julien Jarry), one to BM in general (Of Two Lands):



Without commenting on the actual projects (great variety in both videos), the BM looks and feels objectively better to me. A lot of the BM was with their 6k sensors. I'm not certain, but I thought they were sort of even in DR departments. As in, there's no DR runaway yet I'm still seeing better images from one brand. I'll never be so technical where I'll be able to give an elegant, scientific breakdown for the why, but I can still talk about what I notice.

What do people think?

And just to clarify, this is in NO WAY commenting on the overall projects, because Julien obviously went with the fx6 for its usability, and the sony would be the clear winner for travelling around the world, doing sound, while also shooting fantastic video. Look how small and capable his set ups are! So this isn't an overall package comment, it's just notes on pure IQ.
 
rob norton said:
Here are two love letters, one to the fx6 (phenomenal talent Julien Jarry), one to BM in general (Of Two Lands):

Without commenting on the actual projects (great variety in both videos), the BM looks and feels objectively better to me. A lot of the BM was with their 6k sensors. I'm not certain, but I thought they were sort of even in DR departments. As in, there's no DR runaway yet I'm still seeing better images from one brand. I'll never be so technical where I'll be able to give an elegant, scientific breakdown for the why, but I can still talk about what I notice.

What do people think?

And just to clarify, this is in NO WAY commenting on the overall projects, because Julien obviously went with the fx6 for its usability, and the sony would be the clear winner for travelling around the world, doing sound, while also shooting fantastic video. Look how small and capable his set ups are! So this isn't an overall package comment, it's just notes on pure IQ.
Click to expand...
Great examples. I have an original Bmpcc that kind of fell by the wayside when my external batteries went bad. I recently pulled out some of the original tests I shot with it in the same spaces I filmed my C100 tests just to compare...and the difference is wild. I'd forgotten how creamy and pleasant the image is, and how much latitude it has. The sensor is incredibly noisy at 800 but the noise is truly granular, and dropping the iso to 400 pretty much solves that problem.

I know a lot of that is the codec, but other cameras that shoot prores still don't have that sort of rich/muted look...I don't even know how to describe it.
 
There are differences to the quality of the cameras, more and less, but most of us (I'm sorry) are not talented enough to bring them out, or simply do not have the help needed to bring them out in certain circumstances, or not using the cameras that would provide us the visuals we dream of.

I never was, never will be.

The online camera comparisons mean very little, they always look so similar.

I was a very early BM user like many and we all saw it immediately; just impossible quality for the price back then, 2012, 2013.

Once the Pocket 4K came out with just a bit more resolution to push it over that last top, it was a wrap. After that you were only paying for AF, IS, eND, etc.

This thing is like $700 on eBay:

 
NorBro said:
There are differences to the quality of the cameras, more and less, but most of us (I'm sorry) are not talented enough to bring them out, or simply do not have the help needed to bring them out in certain circumstances, or not using the cameras that would provide us the visuals we dream of.

I never was, never will be.

The online camera comparisons mean very little, they always look so similar.

I was a very early BM user like many and we all saw it immediately; just impossible quality for the price back then, 2012, 2013.

Once the Pocket 4K came out with just a bit more resolution to push it over that last top, it was a wrap. After that you were only paying for AF, IS, eND, etc.

This thing is like $700 on eBay:

Click to expand...
What’s crazy to me is how much 16mm cameras have inflated in value. When the BMCC/BMPCC came out you could get a Bolex H16 for a few hundred dollars. Now they are thousands!

I mean, film is neat, but…
 
I don't know much about them but presumably they are becoming more and more valuable small traces of that history and maybe sooner or later the supply will run out (they'll keep getting recycled online until they are just gone one day).
 
Along with the c100 I also picked up an XF200. I’ve never used one before but feature-wise it seemed like it would be a good fit for use on my other doc project because of it’s customizable automatic options and IS.

Today I shot the same exposure tests that I’ve been doing with the c100 just to familiarize myself with the controls….and wow.

The beefier 8 bit 422 codec kind of makes me think I should have waited for a gently used c300 to show up on eBay. It’s a fair bit noisier at medium gain settings, but there’s no macro blocking or posterization in the shadows, and I really really tried to make it happen. I think once I have the automatic gain setting dialed in so it doesn’t swing so wide it will be perfectly serviceable.

It’s the first ENG style camera I’ve used since high school, and I have to say I am smitten.
 
rob norton said:
Here are two love letters, one to the fx6 (phenomenal talent Julien Jarry), one to BM in general (Of Two Lands):



Without commenting on the actual projects (great variety in both videos), the BM looks and feels objectively better to me. A lot of the BM was with their 6k sensors. I'm not certain, but I thought they were sort of even in DR departments. As in, there's no DR runaway yet I'm still seeing better images from one brand. I'll never be so technical where I'll be able to give an elegant, scientific breakdown for the why, but I can still talk about what I notice.

What do people think?

And just to clarify, this is in NO WAY commenting on the overall projects, because Julien obviously went with the fx6 for its usability, and the sony would be the clear winner for travelling around the world, doing sound, while also shooting fantastic video. Look how small and capable his set ups are! So this isn't an overall package comment, it's just notes on pure IQ.
Click to expand...
I think it's fair to say that the popular "Plasti-cam", as one of my colleagues called it when I bought one, adding, "Why on earth did you buy that toy camera?" I'll add that he has since changed his tune and is now an owner of one. Any camera that is small compact, manoeuvrable and that produces a decent image and that has strong codecs and is easy to grade is appealing. A camera that offers a vast range of lens adaptability and that has great AF, long run times, NDs, SDI, XLRs and that is pretty dust and moisture proof and that can fly over, swim under and traverse the globe grabs me. It's a camera that goes well beyond my requirements and capabilities.

Another colleague calls it the 'FIX' camera, a play on its name, as it can cover most scenarios. I was a late adopter of the FX6 but can only say it has so far in the last thirty months it has been bullet-proof. And Sony just keeps bringing out firmware for it. It's rumoured we will get the 'Big 6' layout with it Feb–March 2026. We will see, I guess. Out of all the cameras I have used and owned, film included, since the '60s, the FX6 has probably become one of my favourites. It just works, it just gets the job done. I'm just curious to see what supersedes it?

Chris Young.

 
Last edited:
cyvideo said:
I think it's fair to say that the popular "Plasti-cam", as one of my colleagues called it when I bought one, adding, "Why on earth did you buy that toy camera?" I'll add that he has since changed his tune and is now an owner of one. Any camera that is small compact, manoeuvrable and that produces a decent image and that has strong codecs and is easy to grade is appealing. A camera that offers a vast range of lens adaptability and that has great AF, long run times, NDs, SDI, XLRs and that is pretty dust and moisture proof and that can fly over, swim under and traverse the globe grabs me. It's a camera that goes well beyond my requirements and capabilities.

Another colleague calls it the 'FIX' camera, a play on its name, as it can cover most scenarios. I was a late adopter of the FX6 but can only say it has so far in the last thirty months it has been bullet-proof. And Sony just keeps bringing out firmware for it. It's rumoured we will get the 'Big 6' layout with it Feb–March 2026. We will see, I guess. Out of all the cameras I have used and owned, film included, since the '60s, the FX6 has probably become one of my favourites. It just works, it just gets the job done. I'm just curious to see what supersedes it?

Chris Young.
Click to expand...
If 'The Africas' could've somehow been shot on any of the latest gen BM cameras, it'd be an even better looking project - this IS (edited typo from is not to is) a pretty vanilla statement. But the BMs simply couldn't have been used in the same way. What good is absolute IQ if the camera can't keep up with a schedule? The fx6 is one of the GOAT video cameras, but a lot of its IQ comes from all the things you mention, not directly from the sensor. If someone said they loved shooting with their fx6 but wish it had a better image, and someone else said they loved the image from their BM, but wish it had better usability, those would be fair statements. I'm not arguing over which company makes the best cameras, but to me BM footage looks better than the sony fx6 footage, all else being equal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top