C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform - Page 6 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon Cinema EOS Camera Systems

Canon Cinema EOS Camera Systems
For all Canon Cinema EOS models: C700 / C300 Mk. II / C200 / C100 Mk II and EF / PL lenses.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 11th, 2014, 10:09 PM   #76
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Posts: 396
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Huff View Post
That's an odd way to put it...the waveform monitor IS your exposure information. Everything else is just guesswork.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Huff View Post
The waveform monitor IS your exposure. Learn it, love it. Everything else is just misleading.
No it's not. I used the WFM and the footage was unusable, ever since I made that mistake I've used the exposure meter in the LCD and and verified it with the auto iris button, and it's been fine.
Michael Thames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2014, 10:30 PM   #77
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Huff View Post
The waveform monitor IS your exposure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Thames View Post
No it's not.
Well, to be fair -- maybe it's not for you, Michael, but it is for *a lot* of other people.
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 11th, 2014, 10:56 PM   #78
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Posts: 396
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hurd View Post
Well, to be fair -- maybe it's not for you, Michael, but it is for *a lot* of other people.
Chris, with all due respect you have been very adimante about the WFM being the only true measure of exposure, but so far I've only heard vague statements from you. Please enlighten me!

You know...... either it works or it doesn't. Why would the exposure on the C100 be so different between the WFM and the exposure meter in the LCD? Why would the auto iris button, and the exposure meter tell me the shot is perfectly exposed and the WFM show the whites are way over a 100%?

Why is it when I look at the WFM and get the whites just below a 100% transfer the footage into FCPX and it's so underexposed I can't use it?

If there is something I'm doing wrong I would like to know about it.
Michael Thames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2014, 12:00 AM   #79
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Port Townsend, WA
Posts: 445
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Wow, Michael, your experiences are so different from mine I'm sort of wondering what is going on. That your WFM shows your whites just under 100 but your footage is underexposed makes me wonder what it is that you were shooting? Certainly a scene where the room is in dark shadows, but a window is bright, might lead a WFM to show something that, if you brought the highlight down, would crush the exposure. Also, to pull my whites down into range, in a bright sunlit situation, I will change the camera picture profiles to get a wide DR to work from. Even then, I might need to add light to the shot to fill in a shadows

But a clue to me is that you are using your auto Iris and exposure meter in the LCD. I don't ever use auto anything if I can help it. Not sure why you would trust the auto iris? Not being flippant here, just asking because I never even think to engage it.

The exposure meter and the LCD are something I only use for general guidance, and getting me in the ballpark of exposure. Once there, I rely on the WFM to dial in my final exposure, so I don't blow out the highlights or crush the shadows. It's never failed to get me decent exposure in the situations I face, which granted might be quite different than yours. Learning to use it has helped me immensely.

Have you tried hooking an external monitor to the camera and matching what you see on it to the LCD? That might give you a lot more confidence in knowing the difference. Also there are LCD tuning parameters that might help you dial it into a better look to the final product.

Ultimately, doing a bunch of tests like that is what has helped me do a better job with the C100 and the xf305. hope that helps. It's been a super camera for me. Very few complaints that haven't been adfdressed in the upgrade. I hope Canon gives us a trade in policy to move to it.
__________________
Al
Upper left hand corner of the map
Al Bergstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2014, 12:27 AM   #80
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Posts: 396
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Thanks Al for the great comments. Yes, ever since I got the C100 I have wondered about this. I've even posted this here and on another blog but got no responses. I have the Atomos Blade with a very nice detailed monitor the very first time I used the C100 I adjusted the exposure on the waveform monitor shot for a while the realized the LCD meter said it was very under exposed.

I checked the accuracy of the Blade against the actual camera and they were both spot on. When I'm running around with the C100 I'll just use the auto iris button because it gets the exposure right in the ball park within seconds, so I've come to rely on it for run and gun stuff.

I'm not complaining about the camera because I've learned how to get fast exposure, and the auto iris button is my favorite button.

In reading Shanes review of the C100 he said the exposure needs to be pretty much right on 1.5 stops under is about the limit before the image falls apart. So I really can't trust my eyes when I'm shooting out doors, so I must look at the numbers, I guess that even applies to indoors as well.

I so far have only shot in WDR. The image to my eyes as well as the scopes in FCPX tell me even after adjusting for correct exposure, the luma exposure in FCPX is rather conservative and the blacks need to be pulled down and the whites need to go up a hair or two.

So I don't know what to say......
Michael Thames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2014, 12:49 AM   #81
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Delhi, India
Posts: 485
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Michael,
I primarily use the Waveform monitor to expose. To learn how to use the waveform monitor here is a video courtesy Canon

Best,
Sabyasachi
__________________
Wild Tiger Productions
http://www.indiawilds.com/about.htm
Sabyasachi Patra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2014, 08:55 AM   #82
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Prague Czech Republic
Posts: 263
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

I like to use a WFM, but not for comparison test :-).

I made exposure ( also with WFM help .-) ) on the C100 M1, then on the M2 I made an identical setting from iris to iso or CP), there I didn't need WFM for nothing except clipping.

That's all and I will hope that somebody will understand to difference between test and comparison test :-).
Pavel Sedlak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2014, 10:52 AM   #83
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Posts: 396
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Thanks for that video Sabyasachi, I watched those Canon videos for a month before I got the C100. However it still doesn't make sense for me.

Last time I used the WFM was two months ago when I first got the camera, and had a confusing experience with it and screwed up a two hour long video, and never trusted it again. Since then I've simply trusted the exposure meter and auto iris button. I posted my problem here a while ago, but got no interest in a response.

Perhaps I'm using it incorrectly? I get the highs below 100% and the blacks above zero...... is this correct? Or do I try and just get the grey's at 60% and not worry about peaking?

Or perhaps I totally confusing the WFM in the camera, with a luma color correction WFM in FCPX? Or do they work the same.

Should I be concerned with a few highlight spikes going over 100% or is that only a concern for broadcast safe levels?

Also, the obvious question is if the exposure meter, and the auto iris are in complete agreement, what would be the difference in using those as a reference as opposed to the WFM?

I would greatly appreciate any help with this!
Michael Thames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2014, 10:57 AM   #84
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Posts: 396
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavel Sedlak View Post
I like to use a WFM, but not for comparison test :-).

I made exposure ( also with WFM help .-) ) on the C100 M1, then on the M2 I made an identical setting from iris to iso or CP), there I didn't need WFM for nothing except clipping.

That's all and I will hope that somebody will understand to difference between test and comparison test :-).
Is this a case where all roads lead to Rome? the WFM highway, or the exposure meter highway, or the autobahn iris button? Or will each road lead to a different destination?
Michael Thames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2014, 08:29 PM   #85
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada
Posts: 1,200
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

I've only been shooting with the c100 for a couple of months, but shot video extensively for 5 years on the 5d2, and the XLH1 before that. The last thing I would trust for exposure is the auto iris button, especially if I have time for something else. I have used it when going from outside to inside to get me back in the ballpark. And the waveforms are relatively new, so I've yet to really be able to get quick results just with them. I personally leave my zebras and peaking on and use the zebras for highlights for run and gun.

I have a series of interviews coming up and just picked up a new light kit, so I will be learn the waveforms more. I have heard the skin tones (caucasian) are good at around 60-70%.

I have come to trust my eyes too much... why not learn the tools and use them if you have the time to.
__________________
C100, 5DMk2, FCPX
Ken Diewert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2014, 12:07 AM   #86
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Prague Czech Republic
Posts: 263
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

[On the start of this debate about WFM is your misunderstanding about reason why is not important to use the WFM for exposure on the second camera in the case of comparison test.

You started this debate and you had a lot of about this - still without understanding.
Try to change something, not to go ahead in one direction.

This test is for me and people which are interested in C100 M2 - if you are not interested in this camera may be better to start another thread about WFM, I will suggest this to you.

This test is not perfect, but there are more shades than black and white - all is the best or all is wrong. Try another better if you don't like this one. This was made in free time, this was not paid work.

I still hope .-) .
Pavel Sedlak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2014, 03:39 AM   #87
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chatham, UK
Posts: 282
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

I have been following this thread and from the sidelines I "think" I can see what Pavel is trying to say and as English I assume is not his first language it is not coming across as it is meant to be.

1. This is a "Comparison" between Mk 1 & Mk 2 C100
2. So, Pavel has set up both cameras with the "same settings" to see the Difference between the two cameras. Seems like a good idea to give a "comparison" of the cameras.

The WFM comments are all valid in their own right and I use them all the time but!!!! This thread is a comparison only so unfortunately it has missed the point.

Note to Pavel, Thank you for your test and feedback.
__________________
Alan McC
Alan McCormick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2014, 05:55 AM   #88
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Posts: 396
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Ken, I came from the 5D3 as well, I've always relied on the exposure meter in the LCD. There is no way I could trust me eyes looking at the LCD screen on the 5D3 especially outside in sun light.

Regardless of what tools you use on camera the real test is once you have it in post and check for luma.

If the exposure meter and auto iris are so inaccurate as many here seem to claim (not my experience) why are they even on the camera to begin with?
Michael Thames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2014, 06:06 AM   #89
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Santa Fe, NM USA
Posts: 396
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Moritz Janisch from Fenchel & Janisch mentions the usefulness of the auto iris button here in this review. He goes on the say he was shooting out doors and misjudged the exposure checked the auto iris and found he was 5 stops off, and praises the usefulness of that button.

Michael Thames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2014, 06:31 AM   #90
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 9,068
re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

An exposure meter or auto iris can be either almost accurate or completely inaccurate as it looks at the exposure level on the whole screen and takes an average reading based on that to tell you or the camera what your exposure has to be, however, the camera doesn't know what to expose for. Let's say you have a very strong backlight and you are shooting a person. Autoiris will tell the camera to underexpose a lot to compensate for the backlight while your intention would be expose the person in front of you right so you need to overexpose which will blow out the background but correctly expose the person. Your camera doesn't know that, also what your camera "thinks" the correct exposure might be is something the canon engineers have dialed in and that can deviate from what it should be, some small sony camera for instance are known to overexpose in a bit in automode which you need to compensate with the ev function.

The WFM otoh gives you a correct reading of what is going on with your exposure, you only need to learn how to read it and how to use it to your advantage. On my gh4 I use a combination of the zebra's and histogram to judge my exposure which works great when I shoot with the standard presets but I have noticed that the flatter I shoot the more misleading the histogram can become but that's because I don't know how to interpret it correcly so in those cases I rely more on the zebra's, call it laziness on my part but one day I invest more time in understanding the histogram better as I know it will help me expose my shots better.

I also agree with Ken though I never would trust the auto iris for correct exposure, it will only help you to guess what the camera thinks it could be, that will work out fine most of the time but can end up guessing it totally wrong as well depending on what you want to have exposed right.
Noa Put is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon Cinema EOS Camera Systems

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:53 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network