Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 44 of 44
  1. Collapse Details
    #41
    Senior Member scorsesefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    1,323
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    It has been quite a while. It feels like they need a $4,500.00 4K EOS Cinema camera in their lineup but who knows? Canon's cinema camera strategy is always a mystery and they usually do something that none of us were expecting.
    Definitely. Canon needs to put a 4K cinema camera into the $3000-$4000 price range the way Sony has bridged the gap with the FS5 and Blackmagic with the Ursa mini 4K. I don't even care if it's a highly compressed codec if they can make it look as good as the C100 does...


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #42
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    8,578
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by scorsesefan View Post
    Definitely. Canon needs to put a 4K cinema camera into the $3000-$4000 price range the way Sony has bridged the gap with the FS5 and Blackmagic with the Ursa mini 4K. I don't even care if it's a highly compressed codec if they can make it look as good as the C100 does...
    Really, all they need is a C200 with only the XF-AVC, no Cinema RAW Light for $4,500.00. I am shooting a corporate project now, shot several motion control setups last night, all to the UHD 150Mbps XF-AVC and it looks great. We are shooting far too much content to deal with RAW. I am not convinced that a camera is useless if it's not shooting 10-bit 4:2:2. Sure, I'd rather the C200 had it but it doesn't and if you know how to light and expose correctly, the supposedly "terrible, useless and outdated" 8-bit looks just fine. Clients like it, I am fine with it. One of our biggest clients owns three C300 MKIs and that camera still looks great too for 1080 stuff. A lot of camera people think specs are more important than how a camera actually looks and buy into the hype of having the ultimate specs. WIth good lighting, I can still make a C100 MKI or even a crappy looking camera like the 5D MKIII look amazing. Camera specs are blown way out of proportion. They are important under certain circumstances but in the majority of shoots, they aren't that important.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #43
    Junior Member 03recon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Pomona, CA
    Posts
    13
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by puredrifting View Post
    A lot of camera people think specs are more important than how a camera actually looks and buy into the hype of having the ultimate specs. WIth good lighting, I can still make a C100 MKI or even a crappy looking camera like the 5D MKIII look amazing. Camera specs are blown way out of proportion.
    Exactly. It's all about the person behind the camera. Early this year, I did a low budget spec commercial with a 5D MKII without the magic lantern hack. At first, I was leary about it due to its well known issues, thought that's what he had. To mitigate these issues, we scouted the locations he wanted to shoot, so I had an idea on what to do regarding lighting and placing the talent during the shoot. Used Phillp Bloom's 'Log' like settings. My director was more than shocked with the footage I was able to capture.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #44
    Senior Member puredrifting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca.
    Posts
    8,578
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by 03recon View Post
    Exactly. It's all about the person behind the camera. Early this year, I did a low budget spec commercial with a 5D MKII without the magic lantern hack. At first, I was leary about it due to its well known issues, thought that's what he had. To mitigate these issues, we scouted the locations he wanted to shoot, so I had an idea on what to do regarding lighting and placing the talent during the shoot. Used Phillp Bloom's 'Log' like settings. My director was more than shocked with the footage I was able to capture.
    Skill and lighting far trump specs, agreed. Unless clients are willing to pay more for shooting on a higher end/higher spec camera, or with Cinema glass, why give them stuff they aeren't willing to pay for? In my experience, very few clients can tell the difference between the camera used in almost all cases, a lot of it is image in the clients mind. If they want an Alexa, if that's important to them, then they have to pay for it. There is that business person angle as well. Any of us can rent a RED, Arri or Panavision Millenium but we only should do so if the clients are willing to pay for it. If they're not, they get what they can afford and we can still make it look good if we know what we are doing.
    It's a business first and a creative outlet second.
    G.A.S. destroys lives. Stop buying gear that doesn't make you money.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •