Canon C100 camera video quality not good? Help why?

Hi everyone! First post on here, but I'm wondering why my footage on my C100 looks bad. It's picking up detail almost like a camcorder. I'm not sure how to explain it. I compared it to footage I did on a Canon 5D Mk IV, and that footage looked amazingly better. Why is this?

C100

5D mkIV

To my eye, the major difference between these shots is lighting. One has harsh backlighting, causing lens flare. The other does not. The degree of lens flare is very lens-specific as well. Were you using the same lens in both clips?

You are seeing lens flare from the outside which is MUCH brighter than the ambient inside light in your C100 shot.

If you had shot from exactly the same position using your 5D MkIV with the strong outside light directly behind your subjects you would have seen the same type of lens flare.

The best way to fix this shot is to shoot from a different angle ( like your 5D MkIV shot ) or add your own indoor daylight-balanced light source so you can close down the lens aperture and not over-expose the outside light.

LingoDingo wrote:

You are seeing lens flare from the outside which is MUCH brighter than the ambient inside light in your C100 shot.

If you had shot from exactly the same position using your 5D MkIV with the strong outside light directly behind your subjects you would have seen the same type of lens flare.

I'm not so sure. A different lens was used, and flare is very specific to the lens used. In any case, the two clips are not a fair comparison because of the lighting and also because the lenses were different.

I shot a corporate presentation last week with six presenters that were sitting in tall bar-stool type chairs in front a large back-lit window. The interior lighting was not too bright so I had to add a fair bit of gain to bring up detail in the speaker's faces. I was shooting with a Sony X70 camera, which has a pretty good zoom lens on it, but I had a similar flare problem to your C100 shot.

To fix things in editing I used a highlight mask to bring down the intensity of of the strong backlighting and then adjusted the gamma of the un-masked image to hide the lens flare. The finished image was not as good as shooting with proper lighting ( no time and no budget for proper lighting ), but it was certainly acceptable to the client.

It seems like you're not being very careful about lighting and color balance. Also, you didn't mention anything about settings, which make a big difference. Looking at the pictures you just posted, the first thing that I notice is that the color balance is better on the 5D. I suspect that is not a camera issue but is related to how you shot. With color balance being off, the rest of the picture is hard to compare. Ignoring the color balance, it looks like the C100 has the edge on the first picture. On the second picture, the C100 is back focused, so, again, it's hard to compare. Where it's in focus, it seems comparable to the 5D. Again, you have a color balance issue.

Have you studied some online comparisons? Here's one:

https://lensvid.com/gear/head-to-head-canon-c100-vs-canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/

Note that they don't just compare C100 to 5D. They compare several settings on each. What settings you use depend on what you will be doing in post. The best settings for working with the files in post are usually not good for a final product.

Andrew S10 wrote:

You really need to do an apples to apples comparison to determine which camera fits your needs best. That would entail shooting the same subject with each camera in the same lighting, from the same point of view, and with the same lens; along with proper exposure, white balance, and focus. You'll have to move the tripod backward or forward to match the cameras field of view, just don't change the camera angle.

I can't agree here. If you move the camera, you are changing perspective, and hence the composition. The thing to change is the lens (or the zoom setting of the same lens), not the perspective.

Andrew S10 wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

Andrew S10 wrote:

You really need to do an apples to apples comparison to determine which camera fits your needs best. That would entail shooting the same subject with each camera in the same lighting, from the same point of view, and with the same lens; along with proper exposure, white balance, and focus. You'll have to move the tripod backward or forward to match the cameras field of view, just don't change the camera angle.

I can't agree here. If you move the camera, you are changing perspective, and hence the composition. The thing to change is the lens (or the zoom setting of the same lens), not the perspective.

Under normal circumstances, yes, but for test purposes the OP needs to use the same lens to determine if one camera has more detail & sharpness than the other. Zoom lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness; changing the zoom setting will throw off the test results. Ideally the OP could rent a couple primes that are rated at the same sharpness, at focal lengths that would equate both cameras to the same field of view.

The OP is considering which to purchase, so should use equipment for each he is likely to use, and compare that. That is unlikely (but possible) to include zooming with the feet.

It's not just the camera that matters. It's the complete system that matters.

Andrew S10 wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

Andrew S10 wrote:

Victor Engel wrote:

Andrew S10 wrote:

You really need to do an apples to apples comparison to determine which camera fits your needs best. That would entail shooting the same subject with each camera in the same lighting, from the same point of view, and with the same lens; along with proper exposure, white balance, and focus. You'll have to move the tripod backward or forward to match the cameras field of view, just don't change the camera angle.

I can't agree here. If you move the camera, you are changing perspective, and hence the composition. The thing to change is the lens (or the zoom setting of the same lens), not the perspective.

Under normal circumstances, yes, but for test purposes the OP needs to use the same lens to determine if one camera has more detail & sharpness than the other. Zoom lenses have a sweet spot for sharpness; changing the zoom setting will throw off the test results. Ideally the OP could rent a couple primes that are rated at the same sharpness, at focal lengths that would equate both cameras to the same field of view.

The OP is considering which to purchase, so should use equipment for each he is likely to use, and compare that. That is unlikely (but possible) to include zooming with the feet.

It's not just the camera that matters. It's the complete system that matters.

I agree with you Victor, but I don't you're following my train of thought. The OPs main question was which camera will resolve more detail, my recommended test was only to determine the detail resolving power of each camera, it wasn't an equipment or video system endorsement.

I forgot to mention that lens filters should be removed before performing the test, as some filter can soften the image.

Then I would change something else: the subject should be flat and parallel to the sensor. Otherwise a perspective difference could make one seem to resolve more than the other when the difference is really from a perspective change, for details not exactly in the plane of focus.

Mike Pulcinella wrote:

Guys, all of your comments about lighting are good but I think the difference between the cameras is about more than that.
In some of the comparison pictures I am seeing the same kind of differences that I am getting between my C100 and my Canon EOS 6D. The tones are not as smooth and subtle on the C100. It's certainly not a flattering image.
Here are two images taken at the same moment from slightly different angles under the same lighting conditions.

There is a definite difference in look (and I think, quality). So much so that I didn't think I could justify editing between the cameras during this interview. I abandoned the C100 footage entirely.
If you look at the color of the wall in the background, which matches pretty well in both images, I don't think it's just a matter of white balance, though I could be wrong.
Any thoughts?

It looks like mostly different exposures and curves. Compare the color of the shirt, for example, and the apparently blown parts on the reflection of the light on his head. I've never used a C100, so take this with a grain of salt.

Here's a 30 second quickie color fix. I brought your frame-grab into Vegas Pro 16 and used the standard color controls to manipulate the color to get it closer to your EOS 6D. Not perfect, but closer to what your EOS 6D looks like...

It looks like your C100 color balance was off, which is something you really want to avoid when shooting 8-bit video because you can't push the image very far before it starts to break-up.