Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

C300 better in lowlight?

M

Mohamed Younis

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
453
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Cairo-Egypt
Philip Bloom says the C300 performs much better in lowlight. Is that true?
I own an Epic and a Scarlet. I'd be amazed if the C300 can handle lowlight even better than the Epic.
"As it’s the same chip as the Epic there is no way it will be as good as the Canon C300 in low light"
http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/04/newcameras/
 
c300 is no doubt better in low light. The sensor is newer and more advance than the MX sensor. But remember that both your Epic and Scarlet can be upgraded to the Dragon sensor when it is released. I sure hope that the Dragon sensor does improve the low light capabilities. But we'll have to wait and see!

http://vimeo.com/36512776
 
The C300 is (in my humble opinion) the best low light camera out there room right now. You can take a look at the charts http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/profe..._cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300#Features) and see that the dynamic range and signal to noise remains almost the same from 850ISO to 6400ISO. When doing low light tests with a preproduction version of the camera back in December the 5000ISO shot was much cleaner than the 850ISO shot after grading (near the end of http://vimeo.com/33630265).
 
Joseph Coleman said:
The sensor is newer and more advance than the MX sensor.
Click to expand...

So, uh, care to explain how it's more advanced? Seriously....

The C300 does show that it's great in low-light. Personally, I don't think it is actually better, or not a whole lot better, in contrast to Epic/Scarlet... It has rather good in-camera processing and noise reduction. In the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, the Epic/Scarlet will still perform beautifully in low light situations -- after proper post-processing.

I got my hands on a C300 a couple weeks back. Pretty nice camera, it was the camera I was dreaming of ...about 6.5 years ago. At it's current price point I really fail to see what it offers -- other than a compelling HD option, targeted solely for Canon loyalists. Low light performance aside (and I still don't think it's anything to write home about in contrast to other options out there), it makes too many compromises in other areas. YMMV. I think everyone should get a hands on and try one for themselves. Definitely not my cup of tea when I have EPIC.

Here's some stills from hand-held EPIC at night. All ISO 3200. Yeah, they're not full rez, minimal processing in RC-X, but I posted these quite a while back and the IQ has improved since then with later firmware builds and better RC-X builds, follow link to first post and the two following it.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?55674-Stills-from-RED&p=778918&viewfull=1#post778918

There's another discussion around here from a couple months back about EPIC and low light, I had a sample or two showing exposure at ISO 12800 in a dimly lit pub. Not only did the image hold, but I could still mostly recover the blown-out screen of someone's cell phone.
 
The C300 is better in lowlight, no question, but not better in highlight handling and rolloff. Since Red also keeps most of the details intact in low light situations, in most shots a little bit of noise reduction like Neat Video can make it more than good enough for low light situations. I've shot somee low light with the Epic, here's the test, everything just lit by street lighting.
(start watching at about 1:30 min)

http://vimeo.com/38020250

ISO between 800 and 1250 (and no noise reduction whatsoever)
 
There was a comparison at one point between the c300 and Scarlet in low light on here. It came to the conclusion that the c300 is great with it's high ISOs but you are severely losing detail and dynamic range at higher ISOs. I'm sure Graeme will be able to chime in again with some great scientific info if he comes across this thread.
 
C300 is better in low light- but I can't remember a single time I've shot any narrative work and NOT used light - so this comparison really isn't useful to me. I rarely shoot in the dark.
 
The C300 does the proper post processing for you in camera. Essentially it does what every epic/scarlet owner should be doing on all low light shots in post processing right in camera.

Another way to say it: it is idiot proof in low light.

The MX sensor can be great in low light but not unless the post and actual production know what they are doing. You cant just point and shoot. You need to know what makes a great low light shot and what factors need to be manipulated to get the results.

If you aren't getting good low light results from the MX sensor you are doing something wrong.
 
Scarlet-X and Canon C300 are both a perfect or even an ultimate combo rig that can together easy beat more expensive camera systems from some other famous brands.

Let's say that

Exposure Index (EI) is the measure of the amount of exposure received by the image receptor (IR)

and

ISO Sensitivity (or ISO speed) is a measure of how strongly an image sensor and/or camera responds to light.

In terms of EI (Exposure Index) like an ISO rating with Scarlet X and Canon C300 is following:

Scarlet X usable EI range is from ISO 250 to ISO 1280

and for a specifically combo like this

Canon C300 usable EI range is from ISO 1250 to ISO 3200 with a bit of grain and a little bit more between ISO 3200 and ISO 6400.

Even both cameras can show grain at ISO 800 and f/2.8 in a certain situation.

A pleasant sort of grain starts wit ISO 6400 and getting more visible till 20.000.

Also you can use Canon C300 from EI range that starts from ISO 320 to ISO 6400 with a very nice results.

Of course you can use any of those cameras separately at any other usable ISO range that you should determinate for yourself.

Although Scarlet-X EI range can go to maximum ISO 12500 and C300 to ISO 20.000

but it's mostly very challenging to deal with the higher signal to noise ratio (SNR) levels and the highlight blow out (clipping) artifacts at those super high ISO values from both cameras.

ultimate_combo_01.jpg

Scarlet-X and Canon C300, an ultimate combo rig 2012.

ultimate_combo_02.jpg

Scarlet-X and Canon C300, an ultimate combo rig 2012.

Some of you at the forum should remind on my first ultimate combo rig from 2009 with RED ONE and Canon 7D and a fact that both digital cameras had a strong resposibility for change in the industry.

Ultimate_R1_7D_rig_01.jpg

RED ONE M and Canon 7D, an ultimate combo rig 2009.
 
to me "better" = signal to noise

Would be good to have a specific S/N read out on the 5" touch screen - not just the red bar
 
Thats amazing!! i've not been able to achieve anything half as good with my scarlet in lowlight under tungstan


Sergio Perez said:
The C300 is better in lowlight, no question, but not better in highlight handling and rolloff. Since Red also keeps most of the details intact in low light situations, in most shots a little bit of noise reduction like Neat Video can make it more than good enough for low light situations. I've shot somee low light with the Epic, here's the test, everything just lit by street lighting.
(start watching at about 1:30 min)

http://vimeo.com/38020250

ISO between 800 and 1250 (and no noise reduction whatsoever)
Click to expand...
 
Gary Paul Walker said:
C300 is better in low light- but I can't remember a single time I've shot any narrative work and NOT used light - so this comparison really isn't useful to me. I rarely shoot in the dark.
Click to expand...

Same with the advertising I shoot - If I told an ad agency that I wanted to shoot with no lights my career would be over… Might be useful for no-budget filmaking / people who don't want to or can't light / people who are afraid of the post process.
 
Just think of all that effort Kodak made to make good high speed stock.
The pressure was and is still on for bettering ISO performance.
 
Les Dittert said:
Just think of all that effort Kodak made to make good high speed stock.
The pressure was and is still on for bettering ISO performance.
Click to expand...

and it should continue - because it will help us all at the slower speeds as well. But as someone who lights every job, and rarely *needs* above 640 or 800...
 
Glen Powell said:
and it should continue - because it will help us all at the slower speeds as well. But as someone who lights every job, and rarely *needs* above 640 or 800...
Click to expand...
That's only because camera's now need a lot of light. In 10 years or so you wont need to raise above 300 using only a light bulb and that will be the future. You think that red shouldnt be improving their camera's lowlight capabilities just because you light every job.
Think how much you'll be able to save if you can get away with way less lighting.
 
Glen Powell said:
and it should continue - because it will help us all at the slower speeds as well. But as someone who lights every job, and rarely *needs* above 640 or 800...
Click to expand...

Mohamed Younis said:
That's only because camera's now need a lot of light. In 10 years or so you wont need to raise above 300 using only a light bulb and that will be the future. You think that red shouldnt be improving their camera's lowlight capabilities just because you light every job.
Think how much you'll be able to save if you can get away with way less lighting.
Click to expand...

Never said that RED shouldn't continue improving low-light capabilities - Lighting isn't just about throwing enough onto a subject so you can see it… anyone can do that. Lighting is about artistry of setting a mood, telling a story and drawing the viewers eye where you want it to be. Shooting in the dark - even if you can see everything - is still shooting in the dark.

By the way; even with improvements in low light it doesn't mean that ISO levels or the way they are measured will change. So if you want to shoot at 300 ISO 10 years from now you'll need the same amount of light as you would 100 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top