G
Guest
Guest
At some point that will be a drawback, as you say, but for now, things like no internal ND and fixed sensors are still accepted standards in cinema and hardly effect anyone already working at that level.
Cinema EOS Announcement on 19th Jan - EOS R5C
- Thread starter indiawilds
- Start date
At some point that will be a drawback, as you say, but for now, things like no internal ND and fixed sensors are still accepted standards in cinema and hardly effect anyone already working at that level.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
right but if we acknowledge liking the c70 for that reason, it's something to think about. personally I use vND's a lot but they're not ideal
eND in a sony mirrorless, eND in a sony mirrorless, eND in a sony mirrorless...
G
Guest
Guest
I like autofocus and I like internal ND, but i don’t typically consider their absence a “drawback” for a cinema camera. It doesn’t prevent anyone from making cinema.
G
Guest
Guest
ahalpert
If you look at it another way:
When Canon took the R5, a mirrorless camera that people enjoy, and then they say “hey, where going to cinevise this for you guys!” everyone who is a mirrorless user tha wants better vídeo gets excited, so when the R5C lacks IBIS and some of the autofocus attritbutes, then it is a bad evolution for the Mirrorless crowd. But for the cine crowd, the R5C drawbacks are the mirrorless aspects, the mini HDMI etc.
It isn’t that “Cine” needs IBIS, it is that the R5 needs cine to not be crippled.
So, in my mind Cine just needs good image quality and a lens mount. But because so many non-cine cameras have bad video quality, every camera is getting a “cine” badge. the whole thing is really stupid marketing, but it works for them, so that is what we have to work with, but don’t get it twisted. Cine is about the artist more than the technology. Everything else is marketing mumbojumbo to sell a camera. And all it takes is to add 24p and a log gamma curve and viola, you have a cinema camera! in a digital world i can think of no cheaper and easier upgrade, haha. they just have to no put it on another camera and then they can sell you two cameras.
If you look at it another way:
When Canon took the R5, a mirrorless camera that people enjoy, and then they say “hey, where going to cinevise this for you guys!” everyone who is a mirrorless user tha wants better vídeo gets excited, so when the R5C lacks IBIS and some of the autofocus attritbutes, then it is a bad evolution for the Mirrorless crowd. But for the cine crowd, the R5C drawbacks are the mirrorless aspects, the mini HDMI etc.
It isn’t that “Cine” needs IBIS, it is that the R5 needs cine to not be crippled.
So, in my mind Cine just needs good image quality and a lens mount. But because so many non-cine cameras have bad video quality, every camera is getting a “cine” badge. the whole thing is really stupid marketing, but it works for them, so that is what we have to work with, but don’t get it twisted. Cine is about the artist more than the technology. Everything else is marketing mumbojumbo to sell a camera. And all it takes is to add 24p and a log gamma curve and viola, you have a cinema camera! in a digital world i can think of no cheaper and easier upgrade, haha. they just have to no put it on another camera and then they can sell you two cameras.
G
Guest
Guest
Idk, i keep saying this, but the only thing i wanted in digital was more filmic latitude, and since the beginning of digital cinema, they increased latitude from 11.5 stops to 12.5 stops, which is less than 9% increase overall.
Even waaaaay back in the DV days there was a company that found a way to hack the sensor data stream and get the full latitude from the Dvx100, which was rumoured to be around 9.5 stops. If you count it from before the death of film, then you could say we’ve had a 30% increase in latitude in a quarter century.
Even waaaaay back in the DV days there was a company that found a way to hack the sensor data stream and get the full latitude from the Dvx100, which was rumoured to be around 9.5 stops. If you count it from before the death of film, then you could say we’ve had a 30% increase in latitude in a quarter century.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
My momma always said cine is as cine does. I think I've read interviews with big league DPs praising internal ND cameras for simplifying their matte box situation, preventing interreflections from filter stacking, saving time. And I've read others say they'll never use internal NDs because you can't select them, replace them, test multiple copies to find the most neutral
Your hierarchy of needs and wants varies depending on the application (and your personality). If the exact same camera were offered in 2 versions for the same price but one had internal ND, why wouldn't you buy that one?
I only brought it up because someone else did. my personal priorities are probably pretty similar to yours, James. But the reality is that most of my shooting is moving fast without an AC. And I've never tested different copies of the same ND to select the superior one. Internal ND are nice for me even though I only have 1 camera that has them (fs7. And my c300mk1 which I should have sold already)
G
Guest
Guest
Because of the lack in dynamic range increase, i’m assuming we reached the theoretical limit of CMOS, and we just aren’t going to get anything better until we switch over to other imaging technology. Perhaps Organic sensors? We’ll have to see.
G
Guest
Guest
You’re not wrong, you just said something out of context that sounded a bit strong, and we disagreed with you.
I won’t argue hypotheticals with you. Internal Nd is very useful. And the term “cine” means anything now, so i guess we should toss my previous argument out as well. haha.
G
Guest
Guest
it’s a whole new world (except for latitude and dynamic range, that has been the same fore 15years)
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Youll be wanting the c700DR then https://www.canonrumors.com/whats-next-for-the-canon-cinema-eos-line-2/
G
Guest
Guest
Yeah, that sounds nice.
Looks like the beginning of many good cameras to buy!
And i will become one the positive ones?
EDIT:
”WDR mode”, we’ll have to see what that means in the end, but sounds nice.
notice that WDR mode has a lower maximum frame rate, perhaps a dual scan implementation?
Anyway, too much speculation and hypotheticals for me for one day. haha. But yes, the 700DR looks welcome, even if i won’t be able to afford it right away.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
definitely a dual scan implementation. but considering how high the max framerates are, it's possible that the camera can pull it off well. <= 4.16ms in regular mode. 5.55ms in WDR mode. which probably means that it's actually doing each scan in half that time... 2.75ms per individual scan or less... pretty darn fast... could be cool
G
Guest
Guest
If we do end up woth 16bit 20stops usable DR ever, we’ll see producers having a lot more control over exposure in post. haha.
But we won’t see bad cinematography suddenly get better because we can retain the highlights and shadows. I don’t think it will change the skills involved today.
it will be interesting though, we’ll end up reading about cinematographers exposing at the edge of the noise floor so that no one can lift it in post, and it gives them more control over the final look. lol.
But we won’t see bad cinematography suddenly get better because we can retain the highlights and shadows. I don’t think it will change the skills involved today.
it will be interesting though, we’ll end up reading about cinematographers exposing at the edge of the noise floor so that no one can lift it in post, and it gives them more control over the final look. lol.
G
Guest
Guest
fingers crossed
ahalpert
Major Contributor
right but for the time being, I read canon's DR rating and just think maybe they'll actually catch or even surpass the ALEV III
G
Guest
Guest
Well, anything over 14.5 usable stops is a good start.
I think cinematographers are fine with *15stops, 16 would allow them more flexibility with harder light, and 17 would give them post flexibility. go up from there and it is more optional, maybe producers, vfx, metadata who knows. But i know excessive DR is good for producers and directors, more so than it is for cinematographers. I can see Fincher loving 20stops usable dynamic range.
*going by ratings of the Arri Alexa being 14 stops dr.
I think cinematographers are fine with *15stops, 16 would allow them more flexibility with harder light, and 17 would give them post flexibility. go up from there and it is more optional, maybe producers, vfx, metadata who knows. But i know excessive DR is good for producers and directors, more so than it is for cinematographers. I can see Fincher loving 20stops usable dynamic range.
*going by ratings of the Arri Alexa being 14 stops dr.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Also, if we got to 20stops useable DR, then our midtones wouldn’t have to shove the shadows into the noise floor, just so that we can roll off the highlights.
And whatever is left can be used as adaptive to compensate and slow down really hard high contrast light, sort of like an analog process.
And whatever is left can be used as adaptive to compensate and slow down really hard high contrast light, sort of like an analog process.