C100 Ninja vs Internal test 1

Andy Wilkinson · December 8th, 2012, 11:53 AM

Very interesting and useful. Thanks for the heads up Matt!

Matt Davis · December 14th, 2012, 12:05 PM

Update: just tried the 'trees in wind' torture test on C100.

For an inter-frame (e.g. Long-GoP) codec, this is horrible: unpredictable motion, every part of the screen contains motion, lots of edges. We'd expect any Long-GoP codec to fall apart here.

However, my first pass at this test is that the Canon's AVCHD isn't quite as robust as the FS100.

Doing simple pan tests is one thing - and in most cases this is the sort of pixel torture we experience with cameras - pixels become blurred, motion is constant and going in a predictable vector. So, the sort of run-of-the-mill motion we get is handled well by the internal codec of both the FS100 and the C100.

However, the 'trees' test is awful. Unpredictable vectors, lots of edges, etc - nightmare.

The FS100 does do a fair job of this - if you pixel peep, you're going to see some mess, but it's fairly innocuous - the eye is very forgiving of it when you play back in real time.

However - and these are preliminary results and just FYI - I'm seeing big huge gobs of nasty artifacts which include partially interlaced mouse-teeth on the C100 footage. Okay, so an ordinary, sane, well balanced human would have a hard time seeing it, but I can - and obsess about such things.

Seriously, the difference between this and the FS100 is enough for me to use an external recorder for anything that features dust, smoke, water, extreme action, big crowds and detailed external wides. Will so a side by side when I'm done with the next assignment.

Lee Mullen · December 15th, 2012, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Grant

So, you guys are really telling me you see a difference there? The shots look good but, I can see no difference at all. I downloaded the raw and still don't see it.

No different at all.

Paul Delcour · May 5th, 2013, 04:05 PM

I rented the Canon XF300, which has the broadcast 50Mbps and 4:2:2, and the C100 with internal AVCHD and compared them. So pixelwise things may not be 100%, but boy is the image way better. So what's the argument all about? Image character or quality?

Al Bergstein · August 20th, 2013, 10:57 AM

Paul, just finding this thread. It wasn't clear from your post that you thought the xf300 was better or not from the C100 with the external. I would assume the xf300 was better. Thoughts?

Bill Scherer · August 23rd, 2013, 11:01 PM

The ladies' sweater is more red with the Ninja. This is also compressed. I'm drinking a good Merlot but I'm sure the sweater is more red. With the Ninja she looks more intelligent, less threatening, more of the marrying kind but with the internal... she may be a husband killer. I would watch out. I wouldn't marry this women quite yet. Perhaps another camera might help explain this mysterious aura better-

Winfried Dobbe · September 4th, 2013, 09:25 AM

I have done some tests with the C100 and the Ninja 2 myself. In most shots I see a small improvement on the Ninja footage, even before grading.

As an example see the attached crops (straight from camera). Somewhat underexposed because the rest of the frame was a bright window.
The C100 seems to do some noise reduction here on the AVCHD, probably because 24 mbit/s can't handle the noise.

December 8th, 2012, 11:53 AM	#16
Andy Wilkinson Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Cambridge UK Posts: 2,853	Re: C100 Ninja vs Internal test 1 Very interesting and useful. Thanks for the heads up Matt! __________________ Andy K Wilkinson - https://www.shootingimage.co.uk Cambridge (UK) Corporate Video Production

December 14th, 2012, 12:05 PM	#17
Matt Davis Trustee Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Berkshire, UK Posts: 1,562	Re: C100 Ninja vs Internal test 1 Update: just tried the 'trees in wind' torture test on C100. For an inter-frame (e.g. Long-GoP) codec, this is horrible: unpredictable motion, every part of the screen contains motion, lots of edges. We'd expect any Long-GoP codec to fall apart here. However, my first pass at this test is that the Canon's AVCHD isn't quite as robust as the FS100. Doing simple pan tests is one thing - and in most cases this is the sort of pixel torture we experience with cameras - pixels become blurred, motion is constant and going in a predictable vector. So, the sort of run-of-the-mill motion we get is handled well by the internal codec of both the FS100 and the C100. However, the 'trees' test is awful. Unpredictable vectors, lots of edges, etc - nightmare. The FS100 does do a fair job of this - if you pixel peep, you're going to see some mess, but it's fairly innocuous - the eye is very forgiving of it when you play back in real time. However - and these are preliminary results and just FYI - I'm seeing big huge gobs of nasty artifacts which include partially interlaced mouse-teeth on the C100 footage. Okay, so an ordinary, sane, well balanced human would have a hard time seeing it, but I can - and obsess about such things. Seriously, the difference between this and the FS100 is enough for me to use an external recorder for anything that features dust, smoke, water, extreme action, big crowds and detailed external wides. Will so a side by side when I'm done with the next assignment. Attached Thumbnails __________________ Director/Editor - MDMA Ltd: Write, Shoot, Edit, Publish - mattdavis.pro EX1 x2, C100 --> FCPX & PPro6

May 5th, 2013, 04:05 PM	#19
Paul Delcour Tourist Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Hilversum, Netherlands Posts: 1	Re: C100 Ninja vs Internal test 1 I rented the Canon XF300, which has the broadcast 50Mbps and 4:2:2, and the C100 with internal AVCHD and compared them. So pixelwise things may not be 100%, but boy is the image way better. So what's the argument all about? Image character or quality?

August 20th, 2013, 10:57 AM	#20
Al Bergstein Major Player Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Port Townsend, WA Posts: 456	Re: C100 Ninja vs Internal test 1 Paul, just finding this thread. It wasn't clear from your post that you thought the xf300 was better or not from the C100 with the external. I would assume the xf300 was better. Thoughts?

August 23rd, 2013, 11:01 PM	#21
Bill Scherer Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Santa Cruz, California Posts: 33	Re: C100 Ninja vs Internal test 1 The ladies' sweater is more red with the Ninja. This is also compressed. I'm drinking a good Merlot but I'm sure the sweater is more red. With the Ninja she looks more intelligent, less threatening, more of the marrying kind but with the internal... she may be a husband killer. I would watch out. I wouldn't marry this women quite yet. Perhaps another camera might help explain this mysterious aura better-

September 4th, 2013, 09:25 AM	#22
Winfried Dobbe Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Amersfoort, Netherlands Posts: 85	Re: C100 Ninja vs Internal test 1 I have done some tests with the C100 and the Ninja 2 myself. In most shots I see a small improvement on the Ninja footage, even before grading. As an example see the attached crops (straight from camera). Somewhat underexposed because the rest of the frame was a bright window. The C100 seems to do some noise reduction here on the AVCHD, probably because 24 mbit/s can't handle the noise. Attached Thumbnails Last edited by Winfried Dobbe; September 4th, 2013 at 09:28 AM. Reason: attachments missing ??