I already posted a mention of this over on another thread but it appears that low light performance of the C300 isn't quite as super as we were led to believe.

We shot our first wedding with the C300 last weekend & while most of the video is stunning the low light stuff shot at ISO6400 is really noisy & nothing like footage shot at the same time with a Canon 5D3 at ISO12800. I can't post any footage yet as we haven't produced the highlights trailer for the client & I can't find any shots that aren't identifiable but I should be able to post some samples by next week.

We have been using the 5D3 for a few weeks now so have probably become somewhat blase about the astonishingly noise free high ISO performance so perhaps it was unrealistic to expect similar performance from the C300 but after reading so much about how great the low light performance it actually turns out to be a bit disappointing. Don't get me wrong the low light performance is great & certainly much better than any other camcorder that I have used but it looks to me that just like the 5D2 that it's OK to use high ISOs but the scene must be well exposed otherwise it looks a mess. The low light footage at the wedding is a bit underexposed so it could be that if I had upped the ISO to 12800 it would have been less noisy. It has certainly got me to pack my light meter for the next gig rather than just relying on the camera & eyeballing it.

I would welcome any other experiences of shooting with the C300 in low light especially if you have any custom picture profiles particularly suited to low light use.

Were you using C log by any chance?

Nigel,

Thanks for posting that info. That's sad to hear. I had considered the low-light performance to be one of the redeeming qualities of this camera which doesn't have any autofocus. As such, it would seem to be a good choice for a locked down camera to get the vows. If low-light is anything short of fantastic, then that will be a deal breaker for wedding use I'd imagine. BTW - What lens did you have on the C300?

Were you using C log by any chance?No just the standard default settings with no custom profile. Next time I will set up with Alan Robertss' 'BBC' recommendations as a starting point. We will probably not be using C-log because 1) It means that we will have to grade every clip 7 2) It looks so ghastly & washed out on the LCD that it is very off-putting.

Were you using C log by any chance?

Nigel,

Thanks for posting that info. That's sad to hear. I had considered the low-light performance to be one of the redeeming qualities of this camera which doesn't have any autofocus. As such, it would seem to be a good choice for a locked down camera to get the vows. If low-light is anything short of fantastic, then that will be a deal breaker for wedding use I'd imagine. BTW - What lens did you have on the C300?Don't be too sad:-) Low light performance is great but it's a matter of perspective. It's way better than the XF105/305 & easily better than that of any other camcorder that I have ever used but it doesn't look to be as good as the stellar low light performance of the 5D3. It's just a question of learning the limits. The 5D2 can be used up to ISO3200 provided that it is well exposed. If the C300 is as good or better then I will be happy.

I was using the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 USM IS which is the best all round lens for the crop sensor.

Nigel,

thanks for the interesting post regarding the C300 low light performance, or lack of.

I've recently done some night filming on the M25 using the XF305 and whilst it looked great in the LCD at the time it was very noisy once on the computer.

I sorted the problem out to a large extent using the Irudis Tonalizer plugin which is really great at sorting out problem footage. It has a filter called Adapation which seems to gently boost the black levels. When used gently in combination with the brightness, highlights and details controls, and possibly even using the the noise reduction filter, the appearance of files can be dramatically improved.

I've only done a tiny bit of evening / low light filming with the C300 so far and whilst the results were quite noisy there was an immense amount of detail.

EOS C300 - Hertfordshire Village Roads on Vimeo

I would imagine the optimum results will be obtained using a fast lens wide open and then juggling with the ISO or Gain.

I've just bought a Sigma 50mm F1.4. Even in dull light the lens need either stopping down or ND.

We have been using the 5D3 for a few weeks now so have probably become somewhat blase about the astonishingly noise free high ISO performance so perhaps it was unrealistic to expect similar performance from the C300 ........
I'm utterly astonished to hear you say you found the C300 inferior to the 5D3 in low light performance, it's not the experience of others.

I'm inclined to think there may be a bit more to it, either a fault, or...... you didn't leave an ND in by accident, did you........? (Yes, I know, but you'd be amazed how many times it has happened, especially with cameras the operators aren't 100% familiar with.......and the NDs in the C300 are motor operated, not the normal turning knob arrangement.)

Also, what was your iris setting?.....if you have the iris closed down, it gives the appearance that the grain is increased....keep the iris more open and, if needed, use the ND......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

We just did a two day event shoot on a C300 24-105 combo. In the shots with low light and a light source for high DR at 6400 we saw much more grain than scenes with less DR been though we exposed more for dark areas do that all shots matched well. Nigel did your shots have a similar wide DR?

I'm utterly astonished to hear you say you found the C300 inferior to the 5D3 in low light performance, it's not the experience of others.

Agreed, that certainly hasn't been my experience Nigel. The C300 is *amazing* in low light. I owned a 5DIII until recently, and while impressive in its own right, I'd take the C300 over it for low light any day.

Curious how our experience is so different. I'm just constantly blown away by the C300's low light performance. It sees much better in the dark than I do.

One thing I have learned is that with the C300 it pays not to underexpose and boost levels in post. Rather, raise the ISO so you're capturing plenty of light. The sensor is incredibly sensitive and outperforms the codec imo. So, shooting at ISO12800 and crushing the blacks just a tad in post produces a *much* cleaner image than shooting at say 3200 and lifting levels in post.

The Canon C300 saved my butt on Vimeo

No just the standard default settings with no custom profile. Next time I will set up with Alan Robertss' 'BBC' recommendations as a starting point. We will probably not be using C-log because 1) It means that we will have to grade every clip 7 2) It looks so ghastly & washed out on the LCD that it is very off-putting.

There is a View Assist menu selection that will portray your image with more contrast when shooting in C-Log. It isn't perfect but it's better than viewing live C-Log when recording. Canon DLC: Cinema EOS Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/misc/cinemaEOS_faq.shtml)

This one is @ ISO20000, F1.4 with a Zeiss 35mmZE. How does this compare with your shot?

C300 Ultra Low Light Test on Vimeo

Thought this video posted by David Fisher would be of interest in this thread.

C300 Ultra Low Light Test on Vimeo

I did some quick low light testing yesterday evening comparing the 5D3 & C300. I measured exposure with a light meter, with the meter on the 5D3 & by my C300 rule of thumb to have zebra at 90% & aperture just backed a tad to stop the zebras appearing. All methods agreed at around F2.8-3.5 at ISO6400.

The 5D3 clips look remarkably noise free. It appears that the camera applies some pretty heavy duty noise reduction at high ISOs as the image is definitely much softer. There is more grain & noise in the C300 clips especially in the lighter areas with that typical shimmering red & green pixels. There is also far more detail in the C300 image than there is from the 5D3.

This evening I will try & do some rather more controlled & scientific tests & then upload some clips.

Just a thought or three. If you're using the normal settings, the c300 is applying a fair amount of sharpening to he image, which is boosting the appearance of the noise in the image. As you said, the 5d mark 3 is adding some NR to the scene. (but is also offering significantly less detail as Part of the deal). Create a custom preset based on normal1, but with sharpening turned off and add in as much NR as you can stomach. The result will be softer, but probably still more detailed than the 5d3 at a given ISO. Frankly, I prefer a light touch on the NR, and then cleaning up with neat image. But if you're trying to avoid that step in post, increasing NR to 5d3 levels in camera, and removing sharpening is your ticket.

One other note. As the grain on the c300 is much finer than any dslr I've tested, I've found the only place I see it is on my computer screen. Burned blurays shot at 10k ISO and above look like 400 Iso film stock on my 50" plasma.

This is a very interesting Vimeo clip that I found when researching 5DMkIII versus C300 recently. It was shot in obviously dark/challenging low light conditions with both cams (plus there's Red footage in there too) so you can get a reasonable idea of how each one performs. Make sure you watch all of it as the shots are labelled when the sequence is repeated (second half of film).

The Canon 5D Mark III, Canon C300, and Red Scarlet at a Nighttime Bike Race on Vimeo

Also, here's the bumpf from the Vimeo page:

"A three camera comparison in a real world situation to see how they cut together. Not intended to be a particularly scientific test, the lighting situations were such that the Canon cameras floated as high as 6400iso. The Scarlet was either 800 or 1000iso. There were a number of situations where the Scarlet simply could not see what the Canons did. Only usable Scarlet footage was included in this, as again, this was to assess if general audiences would notice major major differences."

I am sure that the high ISO image can be improved by fiddling with NR but I am just a little surprised at how easy it was for me to shoot video with a lot of noise. There have been plenty of low light tests of the C300 published on the Interweb including some linked to in this thread & I have never seen any mention of bad noise at high ISOs or of needing a custom preset for low light situations.

Well....I think that most of the discussion surrounding the C300 post launch, pre-delivery focused not on the lack of noise, but on it's "quality". DSLR footage up to that time had shown a lot of chunky patterned noise starting around 2500 ISO and the C300 is simply superior not because of a lack of noise, but that the noise looks organic, is finer and is largely reminiscent of film grain most of the time. Additionally, most of the early shooters were specifically shooting in C-log "locked" mode, which has no sharpening. In this preset mode the camera will exhibit the finest, least present noise, but frankly you're really looking at 1-2 stops loss of speed when shooting in this mode due to its log type gamma and highlight protection. Canon Log -- in all light levels -- compared to the other presets gives a much silkier noise free image largely due to the lack of sharpening. (this camera is so detailed that I'm not sure why any of the presets include higher sharpening levels, but they do).

My vimeo postings from several months ago, regarding shooting by "moonlight" show that this camera is capable of impressive results under the lowest of light levels. I made a simple preset based on one of the normal settings with sharpening turned off and a small level of noise reduction (you should try it...takes about 3 minutes to learn how to set one up and then selecting it is as easy as selecting one of the factory presets.) Below I've attached three stills from a section shot at 6400 to 12,800. These have no additional noise reduction, but have been heavily graded (which should have increased the noise somewhat). I'm having a hard time finding anything objectionable about the noise in these, and certainly the detail we see in the hair and skin is something you'll never see even in good light from the 5dmarkIII.

The 5D3 clips look remarkably noise free. It appears that the camera applies some pretty heavy duty noise reduction at high ISOs as the image is definitely much softer.
Comparing a camera with noise reduction to one without is apples and oranges. If the 5D3 is using in-camera noise reduction the picture may look "less noisy" - that is not to say it has better low light performance. My immediate question is whether you can turn the noise reduction of the 5D3 off? If not, it's a point against it IMO - if noise reduction is done in camera it severely limits what can be done afterwards. It's always possible to noise reduce in post - but the more processing done in camera, the more limited the options are.

In the case you are talking about your 5D3 may look "remarkably noise free"compared to the C300, if it's achieved through high levels of noise reduction processing, I highly doubt that is the same as "better".

I regret now having brought up the 5D3's performance as it really is a red herring. The basic issue is that when I filmed the first dance at ISO6400 & F/8 the bride's dress instead of being white is a swirl of multicoloured dots as is the groom's white shirt. It's a bit underexposed but not wildly so. I am just looking at the raw clips off the camera. There has been no pushing of an underexposed image in post. If I had known that it was going to be this noisy at ISO6400 I would have dropped down to ISO1600 & opened up the aperture. Going on all the evidence that I had previously seen including Barry's 'moonlight' I was not expecting so much noise.

Nigel.

If you can...post a frame grab from the offending footage. So we can see what you're seeing.

And FWIW...I did some testing of the various factory presets last week (as I've almost always used Locked mode for everything). I thought that all of the normal settings were largely over sharpened, and that the most pleasing (out of the box) rendering came from the Cine 2 preset, although I I'd really still recommend taking the sharpening to zero for this setting as well. Cine 2 gives you the lift of the normal settings with a nice amount of highlight protection, and looks like a typical neutral grade off the C-log gamma.

Again, (broken record time)... I'll tell you that sharpening is the problem. If you turn it off, your problem will go away.

We took delivery of a C300 PL a couple of weeks ago and my take on the noise is that I wouldn't use ISO above 3200 due to the chroma noise exhibited. I see it with detail at -10 or 0, Noise Reduction at off or 12.
The latter just makes the image soft.

It's a fine grain noise pattern, but when I see chroma noise, I don't think "filmic". I'm very happy to have a camera with great resolution that is very clean at base ISO 850 that I can push further when needed--to a point. I'm happy enough with highlight handling, although this is no Alexa, obviously.

I'm actually more concerned about red/blue moire on fine detail and green fringing on overexposed edges than the noise from ISO 6400 to 20000. Our clients don't shoot in the dark that much.

Jeff Regan
Shooting Star Video (http://www.ssv.com)

If I had known that it was going to be this noisy at ISO6400 I would have dropped down to ISO1600 & opened up the aperture. Going on all the evidence that I had previously seen including Barry's 'moonlight' I was not expecting so much noise.
I think this needs to be put in perspective. The camera is reckoned to have a base ISO rating of about 800 - and that with pretty low noise. That is high by most video camera standards. Compared to that, ISO 6400 is 3 stops different, and that corresponds to 18dB above base in video terminology.

With prosumer cameras, you'd be lucky to get away with even 6dB in many cases. With many 2/3" professional cameras, even 12dB may be considered too much - I'd certainly be expecting to see noticeable noise. And remember you're starting with a base ISO already maybe a half stop better with the C300, so ISO6400 may be more like a 21dB gain increase compared to many cameras. It doesn't surprise me at all that noise is starting to be evident at such gain settings, with a lot of cameras the picture would be effectively unusable, other than for breaking news.

But everything is relative, and I'd agree that it would be useful to see a frame grab, to see exactly how bad the issue is you're concerned about. I'd also echo the comments that camera settings will influence noise levels.

We took delivery of a C300 PL a couple of weeks ago and my take on the noise is that I wouldn't use ISO above 3200 due to the chroma noise exhibited. I see it with detail at -10 or 0, Noise Reduction at off or 12. The latter just makes the image soft.Thank you for that confirmation as I was starting to think that I was the only person to see this.

Here is a frame grab that shows what I am talking about. The noise on the bride's dress, back & shoulders, the groom's shirt & in fact any light areas in the image make this clip unusable as is. I haven't yet tried de-noising but don't hold out much hope of a good result.

I'm wading into off topic waters here. Ones that don't help at all with the issue at hand. But I'm curious about the process of the pro wedding videographer.

I haven't seen it in motion, obviously. High standards are also great and completely understandable. People also want to understand the limitations of their equipment. But 'unusable' seems like a strong statement for that shot.
Is it this particular job or would you never use a shot like that? If it's a 1080 finish to be projected to 3m or so it makes sense. Otherwise would the clients really be that worried if a shot like that got in there, particularly if it depicts some part of the night they want to see?
Just wondering.

I'm wading into off topic waters here. Ones that don't help at all with the issue at hand. But I'm curious about the process of the pro wedding videographer.

I haven't seen it in motion, obviously. High standards are also great and completely understandable. People also want to understand the limitations of their equipment. But 'unusable' seems like a strong statement for that shot.
Is it this particular job or would you never use a shot like that? If it's a 1080 finish to be projected to 3m or so it makes sense. Otherwise would the clients really be that worried if a shot like that got in there, particularly if it depicts some part of the night they want to see?
Just wondering.We are delivering on Blu-ray which is going to be viewed on a 40-50" HDTV close up (we generally have small living rooms here in the UK) so the fact that the bride's beautiful white dress is transformed into a shimmering mass of colour for us rules out using that clip as is. Our usual trick when we have managed to screw up something (generally exposure) is to render it in monochrome but I have just run a portion of the clip through the latest version of NeatVideo & I am officially impressed. It has not only completely removed all the chroma noise but hardly softened the image at all. It's some time since I used NeatVideo & this version is now much faster as it is can be configured to use all 8 CPUs in my Mac Pro plus CUDA acceleration with the the GTX285 graphics card.

Here is a screen grab of almost the same frame after the clip had been processed by NeatVideo in FCP7.

Yeah, that's fair enough. I guess I'd have to see it in motion for the full effect. Cheers

Thank you for that confirmation as I was starting to think that I was the only person to see this.

Here is a frame grab that shows what I am talking about. The noise on the bride's dress, back & shoulders, the groom's shirt & in fact any light areas in the image make this clip unusable as is. I haven't yet tried de-noising but don't hold out much hope of a good result.

Hi Nigel.

wow...that's looks pretty bad. not at all what I'm seeing from my camera here. This is on par with the noise I see from the camera at ISO 20,000, not 6400. (and just so we're clear, this image hasn't been adjusted, correct...just straight out of the camere?)

I think though, that my suspicions were correct, in that the sharpening, and perhaps mid-tone lifting of the preset you are using are the primary cause of all this noise.

Glad to see that the neat image denoiser works for you. From my little tests, i'm amazed at how much detail is hiding behind the noise in some of the high iso stuff I've shot, but I'd recommend building a preset as your best option for getting the most out of this camera.

Barry

Barry, this was shot with the default settings i.e. with no custom profile. The settings are whatever the C300 has out of the box & with no image adjustment that was just straight out of the camera.

You are correct that it is possible to get decent high ISO images by adjusting a custom profile. I have now done some more high ISO tests & it looks like the most important change is to use Cine 2 as that gives a big reduction in Chroma noise & along with some other tweaking of sharpness & NR I am now getting acceptable images at ISO12800 & even ISO20000.