Ben Kleeg

3 hours ago, OliKMIA said:

Hard to tell without getting access to the files but it looks underexposed from what I can see. I also noticed from personal experience that the 34% IRE exposure on 18% grey (value recommended by Canon for C-log and C-log 2) always looks underexposed to me and I tend to expose at around 40% in general.

Black balance could also be an option, it doesn't hurt to try.

Log curves are made to preserve DR and for advanced grading, not for low light situation.

Also, I believe that C-log 3 was originally introduced on the C300 mk2 for the 10 bits mode so it might not be the best option for the C200 in 8 bits. Have you tried shooting in C-log 1? You should get less DR but cleaner shadows as this curve was designed for 8 bits.
It's normal to get less noise in WDR mode, technically this is not a log curve but an in between profile with BT.709 shadows and highlight protection from LOG. I think the recommended ISO for WDR is 400 but ISO160 will give you the best result on the shadows.
 

Finally, you should cover the EVF with the provided cap or strong sun exposition could damage the sensor.

 

 

Thanks very much to you and everyone for the informative responses!   One question: The EVF is a digital viewfinder, yes?  Because I keep on getting conflicting info on whether letting sunlight into it would damage the actual camera sensor, or simply damage the display on the EVF -- i.e. is the EVF connected somehow to the camera's internal components, or is it just taking a digital signal from the sensor and displaying that like the monitor?

15 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Have you done any grading other than applying a LUT? I was underwhelmed by the .mp4 files from the C200 but didn't find them quite this noisy, I found raw lite noisier. How did you expose these shots? The log files do look dark.

Try black balancing and see if it helps a bit. 

I had the same experience with the C100 having more noise (and a stop less highlight detail) but nicer noise texture, at least with an external recorder. I found the C100 noisy when I exposed properly, more so than the C200, but the look was nicer when it was. Made me focus more on aesthetics and less on specs (or even lab tests) but with a camera that has gobs of dynamic range as the C200 has, it's easy to expose incorrectly, too. And then the noise reveals itself in post.

Hi, the first image is just a LUT, exposure around f4.  The second image (the banister) is no LUT, and instead a curves adjustment -- that was also f4.  The other stills (the Wide DR exterior and the low ISO interior), have no grading applied to them, and are f2.8 

If this is just the result of my poor exposures, than that's great -- I just want to be certain of that.  Is there some kind of objective test I can run to ascertain if there's something wrong with the camera in terms of noise levels?  Would getting in touch with Canon help?

Hi, 

I recently picked up a used C200. The first thing I noticed was that the blue antireflective coating on the EVF was mostly scratched off -- this isn't a huge issue for me as I rarely use it, so I've started to shoot some 8bit mp4 footage; however, I'm noticing a lot of noise on my images especially in lowlight.  

I’m attaching some stills to show what I’m talking about:

This is a C-Log 3 image with the canon C-Log 3 to Rec.709 LUT applied. ISO 800. 

For reference, here's the same image with no LUT. The noise is still visible, just not as noticeably. 

Another graded image at ISO 800.  The grain seems to present as chunks of red/green -- notice in the lower left:

And ungraded:

Now, I read that Log profiles are not meant for low-contrast low light settings, and if shooting 8bit then the WIDE DR profile is more suitable (can anyone tell me if I'm wrong?). 

Here's a super low light shot on the WIDE DR profile at ISO 8000.  Obviously, at such high ISO's grain is expected, but I'm just wondering if this looks normal to everyone for the settings? 

Finally, I've captured some less grainy shots:  Here's an image shot on the WIDE DR profile, which I then over exposed by a stop, while pulling the ISO down to 160: 

The result is much better, however, I'm concerned because zoomed in, the green/red grain pattern is STILL present, just less accentuated than on the harsher grades for the C-Log 3 images I shot:

Here's a zoomed image from the above shot -- is this level of noise and compression normal for the 8bit MP4 codec?

To sum up: I previously used a C100 mark I, which I would routinely shoot under-exposed to preserve highlights and then lift in the grade -- it was certainly noisy in the shadows, but to my eye it was a less intrusive monochromatic grain that felt pleasing.  In contrast, when I underexpose and pull up the image with the C200, the grain seems to present in harsh blocks of red/green. 

So: I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable than myself can tell me if I have something wrong with my camera (Is it possible that sun damage from the lack of Anti-reflective coating on the EVF has addled the sensor?), or if the C200 just doesn't handle underexposing very well and whether I'm also just grading the 8bit files too hard.

Thanks!

Ben