re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

Michael,
I primarily use the Waveform monitor to expose. To learn how to use the waveform monitor here is a video courtesy Canon
Best,
Sabyasachi

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

I like to use a WFM, but not for comparison test :-).

I made exposure ( also with WFM help .-) ) on the C100 M1, then on the M2 I made an identical setting from iris to iso or CP), there I didn't need WFM for nothing except clipping.

That's all and I will hope that somebody will understand to difference between test and comparison test :-).

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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!

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

Is this a case where all roads lead to Rome? the WFM highway, or the exposure meter highway, or the autobahn iris button? Or will each road lead to a different destination?

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

I've only been shooting with the c100 for a couple of months, but shot video extensively for 5 years on the 5d2, and the XLH1 before that. The last thing I would trust for exposure is the auto iris button, especially if I have time for something else. I have used it when going from outside to inside to get me back in the ballpark. And the waveforms are relatively new, so I've yet to really be able to get quick results just with them. I personally leave my zebras and peaking on and use the zebras for highlights for run and gun.

I have a series of interviews coming up and just picked up a new light kit, so I will be learn the waveforms more. I have heard the skin tones (caucasian) are good at around 60-70%.

I have come to trust my eyes too much... why not learn the tools and use them if you have the time to.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

[On the start of this debate about WFM is your misunderstanding about reason why is not important to use the WFM for exposure on the second camera in the case of comparison test.

You started this debate and you had a lot of about this - still without understanding.
Try to change something, not to go ahead in one direction.

This test is for me and people which are interested in C100 M2 - if you are not interested in this camera may be better to start another thread about WFM, I will suggest this to you.

This test is not perfect, but there are more shades than black and white - all is the best or all is wrong. Try another better if you don't like this one. This was made in free time, this was not paid work.

I still hope .-) .

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

Ken, I came from the 5D3 as well, I've always relied on the exposure meter in the LCD. There is no way I could trust me eyes looking at the LCD screen on the 5D3 especially outside in sun light.

Regardless of what tools you use on camera the real test is once you have it in post and check for luma.

If the exposure meter and auto iris are so inaccurate as many here seem to claim (not my experience) why are they even on the camera to begin with?

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

Moritz Janisch from Fenchel & Janisch mentions the usefulness of the auto iris button here in this review. He goes on the say he was shooting out doors and misjudged the exposure checked the auto iris and found he was 5 stops off, and praises the usefulness of that button.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

An exposure meter or auto iris can be either almost accurate or completely inaccurate as it looks at the exposure level on the whole screen and takes an average reading based on that to tell you or the camera what your exposure has to be, however, the camera doesn't know what to expose for. Let's say you have a very strong backlight and you are shooting a person. Autoiris will tell the camera to underexpose a lot to compensate for the backlight while your intention would be expose the person in front of you right so you need to overexpose which will blow out the background but correctly expose the person. Your camera doesn't know that, also what your camera "thinks" the correct exposure might be is something the canon engineers have dialed in and that can deviate from what it should be, some small sony camera for instance are known to overexpose in a bit in automode which you need to compensate with the ev function.

The WFM otoh gives you a correct reading of what is going on with your exposure, you only need to learn how to read it and how to use it to your advantage. On my gh4 I use a combination of the zebra's and histogram to judge my exposure which works great when I shoot with the standard presets but I have noticed that the flatter I shoot the more misleading the histogram can become but that's because I don't know how to interpret it correcly so in those cases I rely more on the zebra's, call it laziness on my part but one day I invest more time in understanding the histogram better as I know it will help me expose my shots better.

I also agree with Ken though I never would trust the auto iris for correct exposure, it will only help you to guess what the camera thinks it could be, that will work out fine most of the time but can end up guessing it totally wrong as well depending on what you want to have exposed right.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

He actually says the c100 screen is not that bright to judge exposure when shooting outside and if you are not sure or can't see the zebra's to just hit the auto exposure button so the camera will expose for you. The example shot he shows shooting right at the sun with a close up from the leaves is a good example when the auto iris will get it wrong, the camera will underexpose that shot until you will get a black silhouette from those leaves but maybe you don't want that, maybe you do want to expose those leaves more and let the sun blow out more in the background so again, the camera doesn't know what you want to expose right, it just looks at the overall exposure.

Also when he says he was shooting with nd6 at f4 and the camera says it has to be f13 it only tells me he doesn't know the basics for exposing a shot right.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

Well, first off Noa he wasn't shooting "right at the sun" he was shooting at some high rise buildings with the sky in the back ground.

When you are outside running and gunning it, personally I rely on the auto iris button to get it right, like he said it's hard to see the LCD screen.... and yes, I know the difference between blowing out the highs or exposing for the subject, if I'm pointing the camera at the sky (not the sun) but even a cloudy sky I don't rely on the auto iris button..... I wing it!

Most of the guys who I talked to with 5D's about exposure recommend to use the exposure meter to get it in the ball bark..... at least that way you have a good reference point.

BTW, Janisch I'm sure knows how to expose correctly, your comment was uncalled for. He had his camera set to 6 stops of ND at f4, he was giving an example of how the camera can give you the correct settings for the correct exposure, by pressing a convenient button.

Since you don't have a C100 I can tell you that you really don't know what the exposure will be until you start flipping through the ND filters and f stops....... the auto iris button will tell you in a second where you need to be, you have incredible latitude, and it's a fast why to find your footing.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

He was shooting right into the sun at that leaves shot when he was talking about the autoris button, I just gave that as an example.

You don't need to have a c100 to know how exposure works, I"m actually surprised canon added this button onto their cine camera line as this function is usually found back on small consumercams for a reason, they probably added it knowing also people that don't understand exposure would buy this camera so they at least have a quick way to get it right, approximately.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

On the 5D3 you have different exposure settings, like spot metering etc. so you can with the right settings rely pretty much on the exposure meter..... but, I never used it. However I have read that some people feel the exposure meter is slightly over exposed on the 5D3, so yea, you can fine tune it, and I use zebras and well the histogram to check it.

According the Shane Hurlbut you have about a stop and a half safety zone in underexposing on the C100, and if I remember correctly less than that for over exposure. So, I guess exposure is more of a matter of taste and interpretation than an exact science?

As I said before, I did have a disastrous experience when I first shot with the C100 and used the WFM only, maybe I need to go back and take another look at that. All this said and done, the real result is seen in post and that's all that matters, for me, so far so good, relying on the tools I've mentioned I use.

One burning question I do have is....... on WFM how do you deal with the spikes that go over 100% those obviously are over exposed highlights, is it a judgement call, or do you bring everything down below 100%?

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

That depends on what you are exposing, those spikes could represent a blown out window in the back of an interior shot but if you are not interested to see what's outside that window you could leave that overexposed as long as what you are shooting inside is correctly exposed. But that's not important, the autoirisbutton will know what to do in such a case. :)

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

If you need the auto iris to tell you your exposure is wrong you don't know how to set your exposure right, period.
edit: I"ll rephrase that because otherwise you think I"m referring to you again: If he needs the auto iris to tell him his exposure is wrong he doesn't know how to set the exposure right, period.

I use the auto iris on my sony handicams, they have a use in certain situations and I know exactly when not to use it. It's my opinion that if you are serious about shooting a film, autoiris is a feature you should not be using.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

I'm sorry to say that what the guy says in the video about the exposure starting at 09:40 just makes no sense, he basically says that because of the not so good lcd : "if you are out in the sunlight and you don't know if you are under- or over exposed and if you don't really see the zebra then it makes sense to use the push auto iris button, the exposure will be adjusted automatically and if you underexposed it will actually correct the exposure"

So here he actually says, no need to look at the lcd, the zebra's, the wfm, just point the camera to whatever you want to shoot and press the auto iris button and you will be ok.

With all due respect, if I hear this, I can't take the guy seriously.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

Wrong, the auto-iris button will give you a f-stop based on a average reading of what it sees in the entire frame, not on what you are actually trying to expose.

I don't want the camera telling me what f-stop I want to be using as that affects the dof, I decide at what f-stop I will be shooting and that doesn't change and then I set the appropriate iso and use variable nd-filter and with help of the zebra's and the histogram I determine when my exposure is right.

The autoiris button does have it's uses like I said before, which is why Canon might have included it, and that's in highly unpredictable and fast changing lightsituations while "running and gunning", then the auto-iris will help you to keep the exposure where it thinks it should be and faster then you can change it manually which might be the difference in getting or not getting a particular shot, but that only will work if the conditions are right, it just as easy can go the wrong way and the high dynamic range won't save your butt in such a case.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

Doesn't anybody use lightmeters anymore? A quick button press from the incident meter hanging around my neck is all I need.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

I very rarely see photogs use that at a wedding but it's not something that is commonly used for video eventhough it gives the most accurate reading, I guess if you have the time to set up your shots there no reason not to use it.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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:

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.

Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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!

Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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!

Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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

Re: C100 Mark II -- Mostly About Waveform
 

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.