Michael, Life is not always Black and White, you also get some Grey in between - It is the same for "Exposure".

Have a nice day

Looks like Pavel's comparison test has gone off topic, 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, thanks. I was a little out in this "cross" debate (yes, english is not my native language).

I don't exactly understand to "WFM criticism" of Michael Thames, you described exactly the main idea of my test - it helps me that somebody understand to my "english language" .-) .

I think that Michael has some other problem and he is not interested in C100 M2.vs M1 test, but this is not my thing.

C100 mark II is nice camera and I will also wait for other tests to see subtle differences, but I can live with my C100 (mark I), I will not upgrade.

In defense of Janisch, he was giving a camera review and explaining the different functions of the camera. He wasn't giving a lecture on how to use the WFM, or how to expose properly, etc. He is a film maker and I suspect he knows this stuff. You shouldn't take his comments out of context and trash him publicly.

The C100 is a good walk around camera, and the auto iris button does help a lot in those cases..... I think he was giving an example to people. From my experience the auto iris button does a pretty good job getting the exposure in the ball park when you are running around shooting.

I've only shot inside and seem to get the exposure right most of the time using my archaic methods. However, understanding more about the WFM will help fine tune this in the future.

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!

Sorry have been typing virtually non stop for the last couple of days and my fingers are aching, so can't write a note on exposure theories now.

I suspect the video that I had linked earlier didn't make sense to you as perhaps you are not aware of the theories.

People take paid workshops to understand the theories. If you demand or appear to be arguing, then no one will explain it here to you.

Noa Put's point about camera meter when pointed to the sky is right.

The other C100 video review by that gentleman called Janish: sorry he doesn't appear to understand exposure theories.

Do a search about 18% gray card. Find out what it is and why they created 18% gray and not 20%.

If it doesn't work, then you can catch hold of a still photographer who has been shooting since the days of film and understand how to expose manually.

22 yrs ago someone had commented that I didn't knew how to expose. I had felt bad but knew that it was true and did whatever was required to learn.

What is it you're trying to learn about wfm?

Personally I'd never use the auto iris button, I don't believe it would get me any closer than just eye balling it from the lcd (yes even in direct sunlight) but these are all tools we have at our disposal, and if someone can use the auto iris to their benefit and make good images the client is happy with, go for it.

Like I said my first go to option for exposure is to just hang an incident meter around my neck. In circumstances where that won't be beneficial, like if I'm doing event coverage and rapidly switching between lighting scenarios, I'll pop on zebra stripestripes at 85% and maybe 95% so I know where my highlights are (I've also done some tests to know where I want certain highlights to be 85%, so if I'm not seeing enough I can bump it up, if im seeing too much or I'm getting into dangerous 95% territory I can bump it down) and will often throw a wfm up as well, though truthfully in that situation I'm less worried about using the wfm to nail the skin tones and more concerned with making sure everything I'm shooting is being captured (not too much blowing past 100 ire or crushing down at 0). The c100 has great dynamic range so I can typically save anything if I really need to so long as it's all been recorded.

That's what works for me anyway. In more controlled settings I'll just meter everything, but if things are so run and gun those are what gets me to "close enough," quickly and easily without the danger of the autoiris tracking on the wrong thing and just wrecking whatever I'm trying to shoot. That's maybe not a likely scenario, but it really sucks if it happens.

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.

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.

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:

Shalottlilly on Vimeo

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 (http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/know-your-waveform-rgb-vs-luma-in-the-field.html)

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.

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

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, 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.

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.

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!

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!

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

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.