C100 very noisy

[Andy Solaini]

I really like the C100 but I have had to return it to the shop as it's just not lived up to what I was expecting.

With ISOs above 1600 but especially above 4000 I found the image very noisy on any out of focus part and/or uniform colour and texture parts like plain walls.

I tested in in my house in my office room with a normal house room light bulb and the glow from my computer, in other words not really that dark, and the image at f4 and 4000 ISO was very noisy.

Contrast this to when I was in Spain using my 1Dx I shot at 10,000 ISO in a tourist train thing with very dim carriage lights from the 1920s which was the old light due to it being night outside and the footage has almost no noise at all.

Now that difference just doesn't stack up with what I have read about how good the C100 is at high ISO/low light shooting. In fact even in the daytime testing in my garden I can't see any noticeably difference in the footage compared to that off my XF300 and XF100. Again that goes against what a lot of people have been saying about how the C100 footage is in another league to the XF cameras.

Anyone else had noise problems with the C100?

[Ben Giles]

Can you post a sample, Andy?

Ben.

[Nate Haustein]

Yes. With the WDR custom preset. I don't use it anymore for that reason.

[Matt Davis]

Originally Posted by Andy Solaini

Anyone else had noise problems with the C100?

Originally Posted by Nate Haustein

Yes. With the WDR custom preset. I don't use it anymore for that reason.

Well, no. For me. And you can modify WDR with more noise reduction if you wish... :-)

Two broad categories here: 1) noise helps prevent other compression artifacts (diffusion dither, anyone?) and 2) Noise reduction is available either in-camera or in-post.

I've worked with 'sort of' noisy cameras like the HD100 from JVC - never again - and with more up-to-date models like the EX1, with which I have developed a grudging respect that's followed by an absolute faith.

The FS100 and FS700 are less noisy at first glance, but their images lacks the detail and bite I want.

The C100 has noise - you can remove it in-camera with a picture profile, or you can leave it there and have it removed when it gets too much by using Neat Video, which is far too good for what it purports to be.

Noise is like sharpening - it's the kind of thing that's better handled in post, but... YE GODS, it takes it's own freekin' time. However, the noise, or boil, in the image is something that helps the final result. I fear that, if it were taken away, we'd get plastic 'over-clean' results without character or definition.

So, I'll continue to roll with it.

[Pavel Sedlak]

Originally Posted by Andy Solaini

I can't see any noticeably difference in the footage compared to that off my XF300 and XF100. Again that goes against what a lot of people have been saying about how the C100 footage is in another league to the XF cameras.

I had a camera XF100 before and I have a C100 camera now. When I properly set up a CP profile on the C100 and when I can use several glass from really wide to really long now I get pictures which are really better then before with XF100, they are very detailed and I can use small DOF and much much better glass. But at lowlight with f1.4 glass (F2) it is really like a miracle, where was a darkness before there is nice color and sharp picture with small level of noise now.

So I really don't understand how can you speak about any noticeably difference between footages from C100 vs XF100, really not.

[Darren Levine]

Not sure how close you're sitting to your screen, probably too close. the C cameras at 12800 look far better than my 5d at 3200, and my EX1

maybe you should define what type of noise you're looking for. there's nasty noise, and theres not nasty noise. non nasty noise is more like grain, more natural, therefore more pleasing to look at. perhaps you see all noise as bad?

Legends of Light: Noise tests of a Canon C100, 5D mark 2, & Sony EX1 on Vimeo

[Andy Solaini]

Two very quick examples straight out of camera. They are very badly done clips but I think they show what I mean about the noise.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/W...TXZCMTdtcXRVag

https://www.yousendit.com/download/W...TXZUWURyZHNUQw

[Darren Levine]

my guess is you're noticing noise in the darker areas, shoot clog which will bring those up a bit so they should be less noisy to begin with, and since they'll presumably be brought back down when you grade, it'll reduce it even more. you're not shooting at 17mbps are you?

and again, it's not that it's supposed to be sterile clean, it's that the grain is much more refined than we're used to getting, so it isn't as nasty as typical digital noise

[Ben Giles]

Hi Andy.

I had a quick look at the first clip in QuickTime player - I can see a bit of chrominance noise, but nothing more than I'd expect.

The shot is low light, low contrast throughout - so your eye is going to be drawn more to the noise/grain.

Ben.

[Andy Solaini]

This was just a quick test but ISO 10,000 on the 1Dx looks much nicer than 4000 on the C100 in my opinion.

https://www.yousendit.com/download/W...NHZlaFRyZHNUQw

[Darren Levine]

well, unless i'm mistaken, the 1dx does in camera noise reduction

[Andy Solaini]

So after further testing and research I have pretty much discounted the 1Dx due to it's limitations in audio, no focus peaking, no NDs and general not so good ergonomics.

So that leaves me with my current XF300 and XF100. For part of what I do they are excellent and essential with their constant AF and big zoom range. The real downside is their pretty poor low light image. What would be idea would be an XF300 mkII with much better high gain noise control but I haven't heard any rumours about an XF300 replacement.

So do I add a C300 to my XF camera for low light use? Nearly £11K seems like an awful lot of cash to put down to solve low light shooting problems. Has anyone got any footage that compares the XF300 and C300 because from my very limited testing before I sent the C100 back I couldn't really tell the XF300 and C100 footage apart in anything other than low light.

[Matt Davis]

Did you check out Neat Video in your quest for noise free images?

I'm a late convert, but it's really helped on a couple of shoots where the noise was beginning to interfere with the web compression. By running Neat Video on the problem clips, things helped a lot.

BTW, I wasn't aware that there was a sensitivity difference between the C300 and the C100?

[Andy Solaini]

Matt Neat Video is a great tool and it certainly helps quite a bit with the noise. The issue I have with it is it takes ages and ages to render on my (reasonably powerful) computer and on my macbook forget it.

Red Giant Denoiser does a similarly good job but takes even longer to render.

Running Neat Video on both XF300 clips and those from the C100 I am beginning to see the extra sharpness of the C100 images.

I believe the C100 and C300 are the same sensitivity. It's the other little things that I didn't like about it that the C300 overcomes.


[edit] the place I bought the C100 from will refund me but minus a 10% restock fee which is fair enough. They said they will waive the fee if I was to order a C300 but they need to know fairly quickly one way or the other. I can see the advantages of the C300 but it's a hell of a lot of money...

[Ben Giles]

Hi Andy.

What advantages do you see the C300 bringing?

Ben.