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 vs. Scarlet-X lowlight

S

Sebastian Wöber

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 3, 2011
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
www.cinema5d.com
This has been written by Nino Leitner who had the C300 for a few days and I went to the same spot as he did during the night and took the same shot. He compared the two frames, C300 is clearly superior in terms of lowlight, which is not something that degrades the Scarlet-X for me by the way, it was both technically as also Company wise clear to me that the result would be that way. The Scarlet has a larger sensor which makes lowlight harder, and the Canon has always been the leader in lowlight.

Canon EOS C300:
c300_lowlight.jpg

RED Scarlet-X (post processed):
scarletx_lowlight.jpg


Excerpt:
Despite the fact that those two are very different beasts, we grabbed the chance to put the two cameras in the same extreme low light situation, and look at what we get.
In fact, fellow Vienna-based DP and Cinema5D admin Sebastian Wöber called me and said that he wanted to try out his new Scarlet at the exact same spot as we did for our C300 short “13:59”, which we shot in less than 2 days when we had the camera for only a short while about 3 weeks ago (click here to check it out and read the full review). I’ve had a similar thing in mind already, so I was really looking forward to the results and gave Sebastian exact details of the location. And the results are probably as expected, but I didn’t really think there would be THAT much difference.

To the full article here: http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=9371
 
I think the Scarlet shot looks better. Black is black. But the C300 is a great cam and I expect to see some really gorgeous footage from it in due time :)
 
hmmm, interesting. There's other low light tests on this forum in which the Scarlet X is extremely clean. Like the article says "take it with a grain of salt". I do wonder about the dragon sensor upgrade though
 
As nice as such things are, different time, different lens really makes it "oh interesting" and nothing more can really be said. The weather condition difference between the two really change the feel of the scene too. Oh why don't they trim the Scarlet file in RC-X though - 254MB download is silly. The other important note is while the light at the bottom right is completely blown out on the Canon, when you look into the R3D digital negative, all the detail is there on the Scarlet shot. This really confirms for me that Canon gets it's high ISO performance at the expense of dynamic range, especially in the highlights.
highlightScarlet.jpg
Graeme
 
One was set to an ISO of 20,000 and the other one we're not sure about
 
All the extra steam in the first shot certainly helped light the scene. It's a big bounce in the sky.
 
well you have to remember also, the MX sensor is how old now? Newer sensor is bound to be better in some way shape or form, or...where would the competition be? Knowing RED, the dragon sensor will have...very noticeable quality improvements, not just resolution improvements. As I am sure everyone expects.
 
As interesting as this is, you can't do tests like this unless you have both cameras at the same time with the same lens. For one thing there are smoke stacks in the first image that are not there in the second which is really helping to bounce the available light around, and also making it appear brighter but then there are other facts we do not know.. What was the actual ISO of both cameras? If the c300 was shot at 1600ISO and the Scarlet was shot at 800, then we might think differently about the images than if the reverse was true. Additionally with the lens clearly not being the same, we don't' know if they were at the same T stop. Did either of you have a filter on the lens to protect it (which is common with stills glass), etc. So as nice as the images are and thanks for sharing them. I think we can only classify these as a nice comparison, but there is no way we can call it a test as none of the variables were controlled. If you're friend could get a c300 again, I think a nice test between the two would be really welcome as the c300 will likely get a lot of attention form the Scarlet market of people who need quick turn around only at 1080. I know at least I am interested in also picking one up.
 
Nick Gardner said:
All the extra steam in the first shot certainly helped light the scene. It's a big bounce in the sky.
Click to expand...
+1. That's exactly what I was thinking. My first reaction was "WOW! That's like 4 stops darker." And then I noticed that one was cloudy and one was a clear night explaining the blacks. Snowy nights here can be at least a full stop brighter with all of the white to bounce up and down between the cloud and ground. Concrete will do similar if you give it a a nice white low cloud cover.
 
While I am not doubting that Canon is better in low light than RED Scarlet, I think the shots are not comparable. The main reason is that at the moment when the Scarlet shot was taken, there were significantly less vapors from the factory chimneys. Not only the vapors would make the sky look much brighter, but vapors would also reflect lots of light back on the factory and aground.
 
C300 was shot at 20,000 ISO at f/2.5 at 77mm
Scarlet was shot at 800 ISO at f/1.4 at 35mm

I agree with problem with not same weather conditions, but C300 is for me sensitivity winner.
 
To make an objective test, it is necessary to have same lens aperture. ...in this case, SCARLET had about two stops more light coming through the lens. So that makes it about 3 stops difference total. That is significant, but who knows what else is inconsistent in this test.
 
Laco Zamba said:
C300 was shot at 20,000 ISO at f/2.5 at 77mm
Scarlet was shot at 800 ISO at f/1.4 at 35mm

I agree with problem with not same weather conditions, but C300 is for me sensitivity winner.
Click to expand...

It could very well be, but it's clearly obvious that it does so at the expense of highlights....

Graeme
 
Guys,

I'm getting both cameras soon and maybe I'll do a side by side test if this sort of thing is making any sense just because those cams are two different animals anyway,...

Also have got those two shots and tests on my radar (have both downloads of those two tests, R3D and H264) but don't owe a permission to show you here what are the main differences between them,...
 
People are often forgetting with shots like this to set Denoise level to 6 with FULL Debayer in RCX.

When I tried it with this shot, I have quite good result.

Also I think that use FLUT in this case is better than increasing ISO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top