C100 grainy images
 

I just received my c100 and images are quite noisy, even at ISO below 3200. I'm sure I am not doing something right. Is there a simple guide to help me understand how to add new picture profiles? I was disappointed to find that my Ninja 2 was faulty and will have to be swapped out.

Re: C100 grainy images
 

Which profile are you using, and where are you seeing the noise?

Re: C100 grainy images
 

Interested to see this thread's responses. I just shot my first wedding with the C100 and initial impressions comparing it to the 5D I really am NOT impressed - VERY soft image on a lot of the shots; a bloody nightmare to make sure it was in focus even with the peaking ON (I really need a viewfinder for it and fast!!!) The overall sharpness of the image compared to 5D was just really very bad.
I had used a CP - EOSnutri.
I have noticed that the' sharpness' level on my C100 was set to -10 so that has probably got a lot to do with it. I've changed it to +20. Are there any other settings in this sharpness menu we should be changing to?

Are there any other settings you guys recommend should be changed for us guys who have pretty much got this camera 'just out the box'?

Re: C100 grainy images
 

I'm finding the opposite to be honest.

c100 compared to 5d3, c100 is much sharper, and much better in high ISO's (there is noise at high iso's, but it's much more pleasing than the DSLRs)

Still trying to settle on a pic profile for the c100 though...

Re: C100 grainy images
 

The C100 sensor is very sharp. What lenses are you using? As for clean? It's pretty good at 850 ISO in extended range. I never had a camera that looked this good at 850 ISO. Something else is going on.

Re: C100 grainy images
 

I would get to know the camera before going into custom profiles. I shot several broadcast promos with the C100 in Canon Log and the image was great. I shot mostly at 850 ISO.

Re: C100 grainy images
 

When the C300 first came out, there were a number of posts echoing that their first images looked noisy. Primarily this was being caused by using any of the presets (standard rec709, cinegamma's etc) outside of "Locked" or C-LOG gamma modes, in combination with even moderate gain levels, due to the quite typical sharpening that's being added in those gamma pre-sets.

Solution: either switch to Locked mode, or create a new preset for your preferred gamma with sharpening turned all the way down (off). The image from the C100 is quite detailed and requires no sharpening "ever" in my opinion.

That said. When compared to the 5d3 with it's line skipping sensor readout, even at base ISO the C100/300 is going to appear to be slightly noisier --specially through the mid tones -- as the 5d3 is delivering considerable less detail and applying a ton of noise reduction as a part of the processing of the image.

Anyone who thinks their 5d3 is sharper than a c100 is smoking something. They aren't even close. The 5d3 image is heavily aliased, and so appears sharpened, but doesn't come anywhere near to delivering the resolution the c100 does, especially at higher ISO's.

Barry

Re: C100 grainy images
 

I thought the C100 didn't have focus peaking. Can anyone confirm that it does?

Re: C100 grainy images
 

big button...right on the side of the camera...:-)

Re: C100 grainy images
 

Merv, would you please post some video to show us what you are talking about? I have both the 5D and the C100 and there is no way I can agree with what you are saying.

I agree that you should not dive into custom profiles, even from someone as trusted as Brian, without a bit of knowledge of the menu choices. I have been using the stock profiles in the 2 weeks I've been using the C100, and the image quality is outstanding compared to my 5D. (But both are great!). The 5D has a bit softer (or more organic as I choose to call it) than the C100. But the C100 is a 'better' image from my point of view.

Your comments about how grainy it is "even below 3200" leads me to believe you are shooting in pretty low light. You might need to really explore a range of profiles to find the right one for your style if you are shooting up that high. Camera is based on 850 ISO. Do your best to keep it there, if possible. Also, are you white balancing before shooting? And did you black balance the camera (page 43 of your manual). You might want to try it.

Barry is right. Having been through the xf300 profiles testing, this confusion is to be expected. Make sure you understand what he is saying. If you already do, no offense.

Re: C100 grainy images
 

Martin...

There's a school of thought that says 'don't sharpen in-camera, turn off the artificial sharpening effect (aka Detail) and ADD THE SHARPENING IN POST (you do need sharpening, despite the 'lore' surrounding some folks). The reason being that the edit software doesn't have to do the sharpening in real time, and can apply the full force of a 'proper computer' to it, rather than the little systems inside the camera. Software like Iridus Tonalizer is excellent at discrete sharpening, but just a hint of basic sharpening will do wonders on your current rushes.

On the whole, 'shoot with no detail enhancement' is good advice (essential for chromakey) - but not so good if you're doing fast turnaround stuff, or your client isn't paying you to futz around gaining an extra 5% in quality. So, we takes our choices. Personally, I keep the settings at 'Unity' (sorry, sound guys - love the term). Zero. In the middle. Neither on nor off. Not had to add any extra sharpening in post, but neither have I been plagued by that 'drawn round with a biro and chalk' zizzy video look of oversharpened material. I wouldn't go to +20! It will be like chewing tin foil. If shooting chromakey, yes - cut it. Although the Zero setting was okay on my first chromakey shoot, so go figure.

I'm having excellent results with just using Wide Dynamic Range - WDR. Most pictures are pretty much beautiful as they are, and it doesn't take much to make a more punchy image if that's what it takes. Yes, there's texture in the C100 image, but nothing like an EX3 for example, and you're seeing considerably more resolution than the 5D and its, erm, 'artistic' pixel puree. The WHOLE point of the C100 for me was to stop futzing around with fancy Picture Profiles, and WDR is brilliant - switching to C-Log only when the contrast in a scene goes bonkers.

Re: C100 grainy images
 

Wow, Martin and Merv. Not at all my experience. I use Wide DR and Cine and they are both exquisite and sharp, too. Haven't changed any of the other camera settings/profiles.

Re: C100 grainy images
 

What exactly is this C-Log I keep hearing about?

Re: C100 grainy images
 

There seem to be some really WIDE, DYNAMIC and CONTRASTING opinions on this camera.

I shall keep a SHARP eye on this thread, and LOG the opinions


:)

Re: C100 grainy images
 

Assuming you're not yanking anyone's chain - C-Log is a profile built into all three C cameras that aims to maximise the dynamic range of the sensor by remapping tones to the limited 8 bit signal path in a 'computer friendly' rather than 'editor friendly' way.

It means that the mid level greys appear much darker, and that there's much more space for highlights. It also means that shadow detail gets bunched together, making things look a bit muddy. So, overall, the picture - when exposed correctly for C-Log - looks a bit of a mess.

But of course we take that C-Log image and apply a set of brightness corrections to it, usually expressed as a curve mapping rushes tones to final screen tones. That ensures we have enough detail in every step of exposure, and that exposure range makes the most of the limited range of 8 bit video.

The 'Log' of C-Log is to differentiate the way brightness levels are mapped to digital bits - as you move from 4 to 6 to 8 bits, it takes more room to capture highlights. Twice as much data per stop. So 'Log' redefines that.

Note well: 'Log' is not 'Raw' and in the big scale of things that have lots of info, Raw is tops, Arri Log-C is pretty darn good enough for anyone, S-Log from Sony is very flexible, and then comes C-Log which is better than it should be. It's one big step up from CineGamma, which is way better than CineTone, all of which improve on Rec709 (the base standard for HD and what all HD monitors expect).