C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform

Pavel Sedlak · December 15th, 2014, 06:06 AM

Excuse me, I have to temporarily suspend the test, my friend asked me.

My friend (who loaned me a camera) told me that it was not fully finished product, we must wait with the final conclusions. Thanks for your patience, test will go on after final release.

Michael Thames · December 15th, 2014, 09:54 AM

Thanks Alex, well I thought I knew about the wfm from working with color correction in FCPX, but I see I don't... ha ha! I pretty much only shoot indoors, I'm not going to win an oscar for what I do, but so far simply using the autoiris as well as tweaking it slightly has provided me with good results, at least I think they are OK.

I do realize now I have a lot to learn about this, and will begin to study more. For now I'll look at some articles and perhaps videos on the subject and if I have more questions perhaps I'll post them here and hopefully get some answers.

The only question I have for now is...... does the Luma wfm in FCPX, and the wfm on the C100 work the same, in other words. If I were to adjust the exposure on the wfm in the C100 then imported the footage into FCPX would the Luma wfm be an exact copy on the wfm on the C100? Should I be looking for the same results?I hope I was clear. Perhaps this is my main misconception to begin with.

I have been looking at the C100 wfm the same as I do in color correction...... bringing the whites down below a 100% and the blacks at zero. I thought that was it.

Also thanks for the suggestion on the light meter..... I may get one today then go about learning how to use it.

Gary Huff · December 15th, 2014, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Thames

The only question I have for now is...... does the Luma wfm in FCPX, and the wfm on the C100 work the same, in other words. If I were to adjust the exposure on the wfm in the C100 then imported the footage into FCPX would the Luma wfm be an exact copy on the wfm on the C100? Should I be looking for the same results?I hope I was clear. Perhaps this is my main misconception to begin with.

That answer is: it should. In reality, NLEs can have bugs are other issues that make them not interpret footage correctly on occasion.

This is the C100 which was exposed solely via the waveform display:

Michael Thames · December 15th, 2014, 10:57 AM

Well it seems I was rash in saying I'll look else where for answers rather than here...... the answer was right under my nose the whole time.

Know Your WaveForm! RGB vs. Luma in the Field at DV Info Net

Chris Hurd · December 15th, 2014, 08:10 PM

This thread has been somewhat overdue for its "Note from Admin" moment... here it is, finally.

I've read through the whole thing a couple of times -- not an easy thing to do, the way it originally stood -- and have withdrawn a few posts from public view and carefully pruned some others, in order to surgically excise a copious amount of interpersonal bullshit (referred to from this point forward as meta). If I've been successful, then everything that remains should appear to be focused, on-topic, accurate, and most importantly, polite.

A friendly word of advice not for anyone in particular: you don't have to be a professional in order to post here, but for heaven's sake, at least try to act like one. Getting all butt-hurt and making personal jabs at your fellows is the worst form of noise you can introduce to a technical discussion thread. Try hard to resist that temptation. Instead, if you feel as though another member is harassing you, please handle it the correct way by clicking the Report Post button, which is the little "!" icon to the left of any post. Whatever you do, don't reply to it, because you're just adding more noise for others to wade through and you're creating more work for me when I have to come in and cull your meta posts.

Meanwhile, the subject field has been changed from the rather ambiguous "C100 Mark II" to the more indicative "C100 Mark II Waveform," since that's what the talking points morphed into.

No need to close this thread -- yet -- but I can't resist quoting the best post in this entire discussion, just for emphasis. Many thanks to the various folks who reported this train wreck and hopefully it's now back on the track again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Huff

The waveform monitor IS your exposure. Learn it, love it. Everything else is just misleading.

Pavel Sedlak · December 15th, 2014, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

Meanwhile, the subject field has been changed from the rather ambiguous "C100 Mark II" to the more indicative "C100 Mark II Waveform," since that's what the talking points morphed into.

Chris, we have no thread about C100 mark II now .-) .

And if I read the first page, I'm out of theme of thread.

I a little risk but WFM debate is out from this thread, not C100 mark II.

Chris Hurd · December 15th, 2014, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pavel Sedlak

Chris, we have no thread about C100 mark II now .-) .

Hi Pavel, the beauty of the forum is that we can create all of the C100 Mark II topics that we would like to talk about!

I have further modified the subject field of this discussion, from " "C100 Mark II Waveform" to " "C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform."

We can have as many different C100 Mark II discussion topics as we want. And I'm sure they will go much more smoothly than this one has.

Pavel Sedlak · December 15th, 2014, 11:58 PM

Thanks you for this change - I like mark II a lot.

I still work on my test, I have a lot of photos for some WFM part .-) (I have 17 years of broadcast working and I can recommend to use it).

See attachment.

Andree Markefors · December 16th, 2014, 02:35 AM

Abstract:
Canon Log is a great 8 bit picture profile. To me, the 12 stops of DR seems to be the sweet spot where we get good range and still have tonality.
It should never be the goal to "not blow out" any highlights in Canon Log. Due to its range it may very well be the case that nothing is blown out. But if you shoot into a bright sky, out of a window or have practical lights in the shot—most likely something will blow out if you want to maintain detail elsewhere.
Canon Log has 800% attitude with a nice slow rolloff. Blowing out a sky or a window should look "good".
If you expose correctly and you see that you are just slightly blowing out the highlights, then feel free to under expose to "get it all" and then bump the mids in post.

The 7-8 stops of DR in a normal picture profile with the 5D mkII was too little. 12 stops is a good amount. For 10 bit or higher codecs 14 stops would be sweet. But the current trend with "more, more more!" is over compensating. At some point you just have to know what you are doing and be able to make decisions on location.

One Push AE:
It's a nice feature to have since it take the Canon Log profile into account. It will give you a great log exposure in an average lit scene with the light behind you. Just like every other AE system. However, if you don't know what "exposure compensation" is, or how to expose when shooting INTO light—you're in a world of hurt. Especially with the log profile since it is sensitive to light and will push your exposure way down by making room for all the highlights when shooting into light.

Lightmeters:
Great tool. Perhaps more importantly—a cool tool. From a time when you couldn't see the image you were shooting—as you were shooting it.
Still useful to control lightning precisely. For example making sure one side of the face is lit 3 stops below the other. Or separating the background with x.x stops when you are lighting yourself.

For everything else (*1): you have a monitor for crying out loud! Get to know it!

Michael Thames · December 16th, 2014, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andree Markefors

One Push AE:
It's a nice feature to have since it take the Canon Log profile into account. It will give you a great log exposure in an average lit scene with the light behind you. Just like every other AE system. However, if you don't know what "exposure compensation" is, or how to expose when shooting INTO light—you're in a world of hurt. Especially with the log profile since it is sensitive to light and will push your exposure way down by making room for all the highlights when shooting into light.

For everything else (*1): you have a monitor for crying out loud! Get to know it!

I do pretty much what you suggest. I shoot indoors with controlled lighting, so I want to keep the ISO down to 850 then use lights to compensate. So far, and I mean since I got the C100 a couple of months ago and I'm still getting used to it.... ( I'm still getting used to the 5D3) but people can say what they may..... hitting the auto iris button gets me real close and tells me some very useful information to start from, and compare various ISO's and apertures, a long with lighting. I'm not shooting landscapes with the sky in the background. Perhaps it's beginners luck but things seemed to work out well in the exposure department.

When I get the images in post they are fine! I tweak them slightly (not much) and I'm quite satisfied.

That said, yes understanding the WFM to tweak the image finer is something I've decided to learn better. I was up into the wee hours of the night last night obsessing reading about WFM and exposure.... I suspect I will be doing the same every evening until I learn this better.

Thanks for the very helpful post!

Michael Thames · December 17th, 2014, 03:08 PM

Just ordered me a gray card! I'm now a pro!

Les Wilson · December 31st, 2014, 04:20 PM

Whoa, I've been away for months and Canon has fixed the things C100 owners have identified as drawbacks. I know Canon people read this forum and I think they deserve credit for making these revisions. I especially like the improved CODEC and ergonomics of the EVF/Eyecup and OLED LCD. And unlike the GH3 and GH4, it looks like Canon figured out a way to keep the overlay displays on if that's what an operator wants. :-) Anyway, there is now a camera on my previously empty "will buy" list. Off to look at STM lenses.....

As for Waveforms, I now know how to use them and promise to do so whenever I shoot a grey card. I'll take the very well done Marshall false colors for fast reliable exposure any day.

December 15th, 2014, 06:06 AM	#106
Pavel Sedlak Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Prague Czech Republic Posts: 263	re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform Excuse me, I have to temporarily suspend the test, my friend asked me. My friend (who loaned me a camera) told me that it was not fully finished product, we must wait with the final conclusions. Thanks for your patience, test will go on after final release.

December 15th, 2014, 09:54 AM	#107
Michael Thames Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM USA Posts: 396	re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform Thanks Alex, well I thought I knew about the wfm from working with color correction in FCPX, but I see I don't... ha ha! I pretty much only shoot indoors, I'm not going to win an oscar for what I do, but so far simply using the autoiris as well as tweaking it slightly has provided me with good results, at least I think they are OK. I do realize now I have a lot to learn about this, and will begin to study more. For now I'll look at some articles and perhaps videos on the subject and if I have more questions perhaps I'll post them here and hopefully get some answers. The only question I have for now is...... does the Luma wfm in FCPX, and the wfm on the C100 work the same, in other words. If I were to adjust the exposure on the wfm in the C100 then imported the footage into FCPX would the Luma wfm be an exact copy on the wfm on the C100? Should I be looking for the same results?I hope I was clear. Perhaps this is my main misconception to begin with. I have been looking at the C100 wfm the same as I do in color correction...... bringing the whites down below a 100% and the blacks at zero. I thought that was it. Also thanks for the suggestion on the light meter..... I may get one today then go about learning how to use it. Last edited by Michael Thames; December 15th, 2014 at 10:27 AM.

December 15th, 2014, 10:57 AM	#109
Michael Thames Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM USA Posts: 396	re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform Well it seems I was rash in saying I'll look else where for answers rather than here...... the answer was right under my nose the whole time. Know Your WaveForm! RGB vs. Luma in the Field at DV Info Net

December 15th, 2014, 11:58 PM	#113
Pavel Sedlak Major Player Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Prague Czech Republic Posts: 263	Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform Thanks you for this change - I like mark II a lot. I still work on my test, I have a lot of photos for some WFM part .-) (I have 17 years of broadcast working and I can recommend to use it). See attachment. Attached Thumbnails

December 16th, 2014, 02:35 AM	#114
Andree Markefors Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Zürich Switzerland Posts: 81	Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform Abstract: Canon Log is a great 8 bit picture profile. To me, the 12 stops of DR seems to be the sweet spot where we get good range and still have tonality. It should never be the goal to "not blow out" any highlights in Canon Log. Due to its range it may very well be the case that nothing is blown out. But if you shoot into a bright sky, out of a window or have practical lights in the shot—most likely something will blow out if you want to maintain detail elsewhere. Canon Log has 800% attitude with a nice slow rolloff. Blowing out a sky or a window should look "good". If you expose correctly and you see that you are just slightly blowing out the highlights, then feel free to under expose to "get it all" and then bump the mids in post. The 7-8 stops of DR in a normal picture profile with the 5D mkII was too little. 12 stops is a good amount. For 10 bit or higher codecs 14 stops would be sweet. But the current trend with "more, more more!" is over compensating. At some point you just have to know what you are doing and be able to make decisions on location. One Push AE: It's a nice feature to have since it take the Canon Log profile into account. It will give you a great log exposure in an average lit scene with the light behind you. Just like every other AE system. However, if you don't know what "exposure compensation" is, or how to expose when shooting INTO light—you're in a world of hurt. Especially with the log profile since it is sensitive to light and will push your exposure way down by making room for all the highlights when shooting into light. Lightmeters: Great tool. Perhaps more importantly—a cool tool. From a time when you couldn't see the image you were shooting—as you were shooting it. Still useful to control lightning precisely. For example making sure one side of the face is lit 3 stops below the other. Or separating the background with x.x stops when you are lighting yourself. For everything else (*1): you have a monitor for crying out loud! Get to know it!

December 17th, 2014, 03:08 PM	#116
Michael Thames Major Player Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Santa Fe, NM USA Posts: 396	Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform Just ordered me a gray card! I'm now a pro!

December 31st, 2014, 04:20 PM	#117
Les Wilson Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Boca Raton, FL Posts: 3,014	Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform Whoa, I've been away for months and Canon has fixed the things C100 owners have identified as drawbacks. I know Canon people read this forum and I think they deserve credit for making these revisions. I especially like the improved CODEC and ergonomics of the EVF/Eyecup and OLED LCD. And unlike the GH3 and GH4, it looks like Canon figured out a way to keep the overlay displays on if that's what an operator wants. :-) Anyway, there is now a camera on my previously empty "will buy" list. Off to look at STM lenses..... As for Waveforms, I now know how to use them and promise to do so whenever I shoot a grey card. I'll take the very well done Marshall false colors for fast reliable exposure any day.