C100: 7 Weeks to NAB - Anyone hearing anything besides conjecture about a C100 MKIII?

deltoidjohn said:
...anybody who knows what they are doing in post can get equally good colour out of the FS7. Claiming otherwise just shows ignorance of the equipment and of other people's knowledge
Click to expand...

+1

Its like a non-Star-Wars fan giving their opinion on The Force Awakens.

I love the C100, had it over 2 years and put over 1000 hours on it, and would still prefer it on certain shoots over any other camera. I hope the C100iii has a lot to offer, but Canon has really been holding back, so who knows.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I did a shoot once with a C100 Mark II in Wide DR and an FS7 shooting in 4K with I believe S-log 3, inter-cutting the two cameras for interviews. In the final edit the producer showed me, the C100 was much sharper and I think the image looked considerably better in general than the FS7, though that could have something to do with how they graded it.

I will say that I'm not sure I've ever seen footage from the FS7 that looked as sharp as C100 footage. 4K is a resolution spec but specs don't necessarily mean a sharper image. A 50 megapixel image shot heavily out of focus won't be as sharp as a 480p image that is in focus. In camera processing differs from camera to camera, so the recorded resolution is not always the primary factor in how sharp the image actually is.

I haven't heard of The Pretend One (FS7), The Amina File (FS700), or Yuuyaraq (FS7000), while I have heard of many of the films shot with C-series cameras. I think it is accurate to say the C-series gets much more use on big budget films than the FS7 or F5. I do see the F55 used on a fair number of big films, but the discussion was based on "same sensor" of which the F55 was said to be a different sensor than the FS7.

Considering most people don't shoot raw with the FS7 or Fs-5, I think the internal codecs would be more accurate to compare to the C100.
Click to expand...

They can do so much to an image(good and bad) in post, that it makes it almost impossible to judge a camera by just the final product. I've been on both sides of the coin where post made it look good and post made it look like sh!t. With that being said, I've never been overly impressed with the fs7's image. I was on a two-cam sit-down shoot with one last year(I was using my F55) and the 7 was definitely the weak link in the chain, by a fair margin. And circling back to Canon color, I still prefer the image I get straight out of my C300 over my 55, most of the time.
 
There is a sizeable market that still wants low bit rate and low color depth footage that is recorded to low cost media that will never undergo more than minimal color correction. They also want the footage to look great. The C100 is arguably overpriced for that market, but it works. I think Canon will make sure that the C100 III still serves that market while adding 4K. In my opinion, that is all it needs to do and it will sell well even at Canon's inflated prices.
 
cpreston said:
There is a sizeable market that still wants low bit rate and low color depth footage that is recorded to low cost media that will never undergo more than minimal color correction. They also want the footage to look great. The C100 is arguably overpriced for that market, but it works. I think Canon will make sure that the C100 III still serves that market while adding 4K. In my opinion, that is all it needs to do and it will sell well even at Canon's inflated prices.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And especially if they allow that camera 4K 10 bit 4:2:2 output, (even though it's via HDMI, grrr.) that a Shogun Inferno or Odyssey can record. A rig like this at $8k (inc. the recorder) gives much of the usefulnes of the C300 MKII at a 50% or more lower overall cost, without having to buy $2k to $4k worth of CFast cards, plus many of these clients don't need and cannot tell the difference between 220Mbps 4k Prores HQ and 410 Mbps XF-AVC. Of course, then you don't have the C300 MKII name to market or all of the other cool features, but most of our clients wanting 4K aren't stepping up to the plate to spend significantly more rental costs to rent a C300 MKII over my C100. I charge my C100 with baseplate, shoulder rig, Ninja Blade and half a dozen Canon glass available, other than the 70-200 2.8 IS II, at $250.00 per day. I charge $75.00 per day for the 70-200 2.8 IS II. To rent a C300 MKII package, minus the Blade, but including a decent amount of CFast cards, four or five EF/EF-S lenses, rig, batteries, etc. is going to be at least about double that in LA. Most clients who talk about 4K, if I push them, still want to cheap out and rent my C100 package (with me and my day rate, of course). While some will accept 1080, requests for 4K are starting to happen more and more. I keep telling them, if you want 4K, you have to pay, both in greater gear costs, but also more media storage, off-line and on-line storage, archiving and delivery/QC to the studios for 4K costs more too. At the same time, many of our clients are being squeezed by their clients so they are in a position too.

If we keep getting more clients who want 4K origination, I will either buy the C300 MKIII/C200 and an external recorder that will get us higher bit depth and bit rate recording, or they will step up and pay for more for a C300 MKII or Arri, RED, Varicam LT, etc. It seems that many of our clients have champagne taste but a beer budget so working with that and being profitable is an ongoing exercise in balance. Also, major disruptive forces going on right now with many of our clients, the studios are all kind of slowly sinking ships, one of my biggest corporate clients just went through a huge merger when they were acquired by a bigger fish for close to a billion dollars so we'll see how that affects our projects with them. Have two new clients from last year who we are waiting to see how they shake out, they hired us a lot last Fall but so far not much this year yet. You know how the marketplace is now, the days of decade long steady growth clients are becoming rarer and rarer. It's like we have our half dozen bedrocks and even they are hot and cold with work, then we have new ones that pop up and look to book you a lot, but then they quiet down and cancel projects because of budgets, talent issues, internal politics, etc. It's an ongoing game.
 
puredrifting said:
It seems that many of our clients have champagne taste but a beer budget so working with that and being profitable is an ongoing exercise in balance.
Click to expand...

I have a 4K Mini for you for nickels and dimes whenever you're ready to get your feet wet, lol. I would be interested to hear what you think about it.

For those clients that want the 'Blockbuster' look, a BM camera is a decent compromise.
 
NorBro said:
I have a 4K Mini for you for nickels and dimes whenever you're ready to get your feet wet, lol. I would be interested to hear what you think about it.

For those clients that want the 'Blockbuster' look, a BM camera is a decent compromise.
Click to expand...

That's what's funny, they don't want the blockbuster look, mostly interviews and some b-roll packages, they just know they need 4K for various reasons but don't want to pay the big bucks to rent the gear.
 
I bought an XC-10 for when I need 4K. I used to have a 1DC but nobody wanted to deal with it. I tend to use the XC-10 for either really portable b-roll or for product and green screen shoots. Seeing as it cost less than most of my lenses, it's a pretty useful tool to cover the needs that the C100 can't fulfill.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I did a shoot once with a C100 Mark II in Wide DR and an FS7 shooting in 4K with I believe S-log 3, inter-cutting the two cameras for interviews. In the final edit the producer showed me, the C100 was much sharper and I think the image looked considerably better in general than the FS7, though that could have something to do with how they graded it.

I will say that I'm not sure I've ever seen footage from the FS7 that looked as sharp as C100 footage. 4K is a resolution spec but specs don't necessarily mean a sharper image. A 50 megapixel image shot heavily out of focus won't be as sharp as a 480p image that is in focus. In camera processing differs from camera to camera, so the recorded resolution is not always the primary factor in how sharp the image actually is.

I haven't heard of The Pretend One (FS7), The Amina File (FS700), or Yuuyaraq (FS7000), while I have heard of many of the films shot with C-series cameras. I think it is accurate to say the C-series gets much more use on big budget films than the FS7 or F5. I do see the F55 used on a fair number of big films, but the discussion was based on "same sensor" of which the F55 was said to be a different sensor than the FS7.

Considering most people don't shoot raw with the FS7 or Fs-5, I think the internal codecs would be more accurate to compare to the C100.
Click to expand...

I've looked at footage side by side, from the C100 and from the FS5 (4k raw to HD downrezzed with the Odyssey 7Q)
and I don't see any way someone can say that the C100 is 'sharper'. I dunno, I understand if someone says they like
the 'out of the box' colors better....that's an opinion (I personally tweak any of my personal cameras....I've got 5 or 6
'pet' picture profiles that end up creating....I don't like 'out of the box' colors on any camera really.) But sharper....man
I don't see it that way at all!

As for not having heard of the films that were shot on the Sony's, that was why I was asking about what defines
a 'real' or 'big' film. Because I have never heard of any of the films that were referenced as being shot on the C100
(or C100 'sensor' cameras.) I know there are a ton of indie films and even Sundance entries that are shot on a huge
variety of cameras, including C300's and F5's (which have the same sensor in them as the C100 and FS7) but I wasn't
aware of any films that I personally would consider 'big films' being shot on a C100 or FS7. Some people would certainly
consider Sundance films as 'big' films and I understand that, but I was trying to get an idea of what was considered a
'real' or a 'big' film. SO yeah, the films I chose, were not Hollywood blockbusters, but neither were the one's I saw referenced
as 'big' films that were shot on a C100. I think a lot of people have a different opinion of what a 'big film' is.
Also, I understand that Canon DSLR's have been used for certain portions of big Hollywood films, so they do have that
going for them. I just personally didn't know of a C100 being used on what I'd consider a big Hollywood film as the
primary camera.....which doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. I don't know plenty of things so maybe it has
happened.
 
cpreston said:
There is a sizeable market that still wants low bit rate and low color depth footage that is recorded to low cost media that will never undergo more than minimal color correction. They also want the footage to look great. The C100 is arguably overpriced for that market, but it works. I think Canon will make sure that the C100 III still serves that market while adding 4K. In my opinion, that is all it needs to do and it will sell well even at Canon's inflated prices.
Click to expand...

Yes, that market does exist, and yes, the C100 serves it nicely, but serving its intended purpose well does not make it better than the FS7 as others are claiming!

I think if Canon wants to keep selling the camera at the same price point they have to all but match the FS5 in terms of codecs. 10 bit 1080p, 8-bit, long-GOP 4k.

Personally I'd like to see a body redesign (c200?) perhaps borrowing from the C700, but a lot smaller. I doubt it will happen though. Using any of the C-series cameras I still get the feeling they were designed by somebody in the photo department who's never actually used a camera in the field before.
 
deltoidjohn said:
Yes you can. And 25mpbs h.264 is not enough for most professional productions. Nor is 8-bit color. C100/mkII does not even leave the starting blocks in the comparison against the FS7 if you are using it for serious broadcast work as the networks won't even touch it.

Everyone has personal tastes and perhaps you personally like the colour from the C100 more, but anybody who knows what they are doing in post can get equally good colour out of the FS7 (let alone raw - which is what you originally compared it to, so it is fair to keep it in the conversation). Claiming otherwise just shows ignorance of the equipment and of other people's knowledge and sounds like you're just recycling catch phrases you've heard on the internet (Sony looks like video, blah blah blah) without ever having used an FS7 (or any camera at all other than your C100 and probably a 5D before that).
Click to expand...

Those are the internal specs only. You fail to mention the external recording specs which are much more robust. But even still throwing numbers at me doesn't mean anything as it is all relative. Canon's codec is quite good for what it is. You can't just look at the numbers and evaluate it on this basis. Your statement about colour correcting is also redundant. Of course a professional can make the fs7 look good, but they can also make an 8 bit codec look very good as well. So what's your point? The amount of work you need to put in to the Sony camera is drastically more than the c100. Plus the storage issues. I'm not a professional colourist so that's not something I want to be dealing with. I've actually done the research and know that 8 bit is enough for most competent colourists. You can spend hours grading your raw footage whereas I'm happy with my colours as is. And for the record Blue is the warmest colour won the Cannes film festival. But of course 8 bit is not enough for professional standards. Lol.
 
Yes I suppose you are right, C100 is by far the best camera ever made. Better than Red or even Arri. Why does anybody even bother shooting raw when the C100 has perfectly good 8-bit? And Why would any professional want to put in a lot of work in order to get a good image? It should all just be given to us straight out of the box in a lovely baked-in AVCHD wrapper!

As I said, there is a market for the C100, and that is fine. But it is a select market. Has "Blue is The Warmest Color" turned a profit yet? Because that is what most professionals are concerned with day in, day out: what is going to pay the bills. And for most people in the current production climate, that means 10-bit, 4K, & less compression - and that's just talking about the codec. The C100 'external recording specs' are still 8-bit, btw, it's just that any recorder will put it in a 10-bit recording. It doesn't matter how much 'research' you have done, professionals, studios and networks demand 10bit, even if they know 8-bit long GOP is workable in some instances.

I'm not saying the C100 is not a great camera capable of great work, but to irrefutably claim it is better than the FS7 is nothing short of ignorance (or perhaps trolling - I'm starting to wonder if I've taken the bait!).
 
I never compared it to the Red or Arri because I know it doesn't come close. This whole discussion is about a new c100 mark iii and I was merely pointing out that there would only be a need for that camera insofar as someone requires, desperately, a 4k image, because the mark iii remains a very good camera, and in my opinion better image-wise than the Fs7 which has the potential to look quite ugly. Each DP and professional has their own requirements; i know some who would prefer to have a baked in look on set, and plenty do so, pleasing as it is to our clients.
How much money the movie made has nothing to do with the camera it was shot on lol. Just goes to show your ignorance of the matter. What I'm talking about is a pleasing cinematic image, which can't be achieved without much work on the Fs7. I can buy a c100 and some cine glass and still come out ahead. Much better than just buying a camera for the sake of 4k and 10 bit. The c300 was the industry standard in Melbourne, not too sure about the North Coast.
 
mproust14 said:
the Sony products are video like in the worse sense of the word and haven't been touched by any dp that I know of.
Click to expand...


some of the feature films shot on Sony F55:


Million Ways to Die in the West

Dolphin Tale 2

Ex Machina

The Homesman

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2

Tommorowland

Furious 7

Let's Be Cops

Annie

Vinyl

___________________


"Sony products haven't been touched by any dp that I know of."


Used by Cinematographer Rodrigo Preto ( Wolf of Wall Street, Brokeback Mountain, Argo, We Bought a Zoo, Water For Elephants )

Used by Cinematographer Brendan Galvin ( Escape Plan, Westworld, Behind Enemy Lines )

Used by Cinematographer Claudio Miranda ( Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Life of Pi, Oblivion, Failure to Launch )




________________

"The c300 was the industry standard in Melbourne, not too sure about the North Coast."

Maybe that should be emphasis on "was"? Here is the latest on the UK rental market...


"Televisual’s annual top 10 listing of the UK’s most hired cameras "

#1- Sony PMW–FS7

#2- Canon C300 ( knocked out of the top spot since the 2016 survey )

http://www.televisual.com/blogs/29/Jon-Creamer/archive/2017/03.html
 
Last edited:
Some of you start one again battle canon & sony . I used to have sony , fs100 , fs700 great camera as well . All of this is just tools , nothing more . This battle is pointless . Any way I believe fs7 in good hand gives more possibility with better results . I am in canon , but this is different story . At now I am wonder what canon is gonna give us (mk3 ). Last time we did not see too many changes mk1 & mk2 . Many users of mk1 did not get mk2 because there was no point to do it , actually mk1 was still very well selling camera . Is canon gonna make the same way this time ???? The answer is simply yes , they have c300mk2 , so they gonna protect this camera .
 
JPNola said:
some of the feature films shot on Sony F55:


Million Ways to Die in the West Sony CineAlta PMW-F55, Panavision Primo Lenses

Dolphin Tale 2 Sony CineAlta PMW-F55, Panavision Primo Lenses
Sony F65

Ex Machina F65

The Homesman Arricam LT

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 so on

Tommorowland

Furious 7

Let's Be Cops

Annie

Vinyl
Click to expand...

please...just because the FS5 was used as a crash cam for some shots isn't quite what I would call "shot on"
 
I'm weary of all of these camera wars, I'm taking a whole new direction...Every hipster client I can dig up is going to burst over this one, it'll be a whole new niche in LA.

AkaiFTW.jpg
 
coutard said:
please...just because the FS5 was used as a crash cam for some shots isn't quite what I would call "shot on"
Click to expand...

just used as a "crash cam" for some shots.


heh heh

2015071800002350.jpg

2014113000001235.jpg

I've worked on numerous feature films and tv series where the main camera was the Sony F55.

To suggest that no DP of merit would touch any Sony product is just ignorant. If there is in fact a DP who refuses to touch any Sony product then that DP is ignorant because one should never say "never" and a DP should not be closed-minded regarding any potential tool. To shut oneself off to an entire brand and reject an entire brand out of hand is just stupid.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top