C300: All Five Oscar Nominated Films Were Shot Primarily on Canon cameras

[puredrifting]

https://www.cinema5d.com/oscars-2019-all-nominated-documentaries-shot-on-canon-cameras/

I think the Oscars are but a sham popularity contest but for those who care, Canons are pretty popular with documentary shooters, as we all know.

 

[robfilms]

intersting.

thanks for the posting.

thumbs up.

rob
smalltalk productions/nyc

 

[JPNola]

I'll qualify that the nomination of the films has very little to do with the films being shot on Canon C300s, if anything at all to do with it. All would have likely been nominated were they shot on another make and model of camera. ( Does it make me a jerk to reply with that? ) I'm passionate about cinematography, but also aware of the hierarchy between story, acting, and cinematography. As someone once put it to me, a film with bad cinematography can still be a box-office hit and can still win awards if the script and acting are good. But a film with a bad script and bad acting won't be a box office success or win awards just because the cinematography is great. Can anyone think of any Oscar winner for Best Cinematography that had a bad script and bad acting? We likely all can think of a film that produced the Best Actor winner despite having bad cinematography, or at least unremarkable cinematography.

 

[puredrifting]

I'll qualify that the nomination of the films has very little to do with the films being shot on Canon C300s, if anything at all to do with it. All would have likely been nominated were they shot on another make and model of camera. ( Does it make me a jerk to reply with that? ) I'm passionate about cinematography, but also aware of the hierarchy between story, acting, and cinematography. As someone once put it to me, a film with bad cinematography can still be a box-office hit and can still win awards if the script and acting are good. But a film with a bad script and bad acting won't be a box office success or win awards just because the cinematography is great. Can anyone think of any Oscar winner for Best Cinematography that had a bad script and bad acting? We likely all can think of a film that produced the Best Actor winner despite having bad cinematography, or at least unremarkable cinematography.

No, not at all and I agree, camera used has little to do with the relative strength of a film. I just thought it funny that Canon so dominates in this little space, the same as Arri dominates in features, even though it's a "not high enough resolution" camera to meet a lot of technical specs. I don't think the Canons are overall any better than the Sonys, BMD, or EVA 1 or Varicam LT, but I do think that they have a combination of image quality and AF that works well for documentary filmmaking as I have been using my C200 to shoot three different documentaries over the past year and some months. I rent the FS7 MKII, have shot with with the UMP and EVA 1 several times and in their sub $10k price range, I would always choose the C200/300 MKII to shoot what I have been shooting, they would work better for how I like to work but it doesn't mean they are the best cameras at all.

You can bet you'll see this fact in a lot of Canon advertisements over the next few months and I won't blame them, it is a fact, but others will conflate the importance of the fact when any of these films could have just as easily been shot on an iPhone to a point.

 

[klk]

I'll qualify that the nomination of the films has very little to do with the films being shot on Canon C300s, if anything at all to do with it. All would have likely been nominated were they shot on another make and model of camera. ( Does it make me a jerk to reply with that? ) I'm passionate about cinematography, but also aware of the hierarchy between story, acting, and cinematography. As someone once put it to me, a film with bad cinematography can still be a box-office hit and can still win awards if the script and acting are good. But a film with a bad script and bad acting won't be a box office success or win awards just because the cinematography is great. Can anyone think of any Oscar winner for Best Cinematography that had a bad script and bad acting? We likely all can think of a film that produced the Best Actor winner despite having bad cinematography, or at least unremarkable cinematography.

Technically no, the camera hasn't mattered nearly as much as story (script), talent, crew, etc etc. What is interesting are industry trends. As a C300M2 owner, this tidbit keeps the camera I happen to own relevant in producer's eyes. It is certainly "good enough" for most productions, truth be told most modern cameras are good enough- but why spoil that little extra push into the pocketbook?

DPAF is however real, though I feel Canon's implementation on the C300M2 needs a ton of improvement/refinement. Geoff Boyle, in his website, made an interesting comment about AF lenses in cinema. Paraphrasing here: technology is a tool, ignore it at your professional peril.

 

[jb.]

No, not at all and I agree, camera used has little to do with the relative strength of a film. I just thought it funny that Canon so dominates in this little space, the same as Arri dominates in features, even though it's a "not high enough resolution" camera to meet a lot of technical specs. I don't think the Canons are overall any better than the Sonys, BMD, or EVA 1 or Varicam LT, but I do think that they have a combination of image quality and AF that works well for documentary filmmaking as I have been using my C200 to shoot three different documentaries over the past year and some months. I rent the FS7 MKII, have shot with with the UMP and EVA 1 several times and in their sub $10k price range, I would always choose the C200/300 MKII to shoot what I have been shooting, they would work better for how I like to work but it doesn't mean they are the best cameras at all.

You can bet you'll see this fact in a lot of Canon advertisements over the next few months and I won't blame them, it is a fact, but others will conflate the importance of the fact when any of these films could have just as easily been shot on an iPhone to a point.

+1... I've tried to move on from Canon cameras for the stuff I do, but it never works for long. I just keep coming back. I was a spec chaser for a short period of time, but I learned my lesson.

 

[jcs]

+1... I've tried to move on from Canon cameras for the stuff I do, but it never works for long. I just keep coming back. I was a spec chaser for a short period of time, but I learned my lesson.

I've been going back and forth between Sony and Canon since I got my first video camera as a kid- a Sony Hi8 camcorder and next a Canon digital tape camcorder. Canon's had the better color/look while Sony always has better detail and DR. Almost like they are working together with strategic feature-crippling to keep us ping-ponging between brands to keep sales going

A while I ago I sold all recent cameras and lenses that weren't Canon (Sony, Panasonic, Fuji) to focus on cameras that take the least work in post as well as best suited for high-end stills. I had two 5D3s I had held onto for a very long time as back up still cameras and also to use with ML RAW. Canon's DPAF made the 5D3 obsolete, especially after getting a 1DX II and 80D, so the 5D3's got sold too. When comparing the 5D3 video to 80D and 1DX II, I found that color / tone-mapping didn't match the 5D3 quality for video, and that raised both eyebrows lol. Was that done on purpose, or are the newer DPAF sensors+color filters not as good as the 5D3 or did Canon detune quality for video to protect their dedicated videocameras? The work-around was to create custom picture styles, however close to 0% of normal users will ever bother to do that.

I thought the C300 II was the so called perfect video camera- 5D3 color with DPAF. Over the years I learned the C300 II doesn't do very good 4K, has aliasing+moire, plastic skin tones (still too much NR even at -1), the built-in NDs can cause major color shifts (even stated in the manual! (which most people don't read)), doesn't have anywhere near 15 stops real DR, and the "pro audio" XLR + preamps wasn't really all that great (after comparing to a 1DX II with an external preamp using a Schoeps CMC641). All that said, what other video camera other than the C200 has the same quality AF and decent broadcast codecs (which the C200 doesn't have) with relatively low-effort-to-look-good skintones? Another aspect is Canon is very reliable, and this is often overlooked by folks looking to acquire a camera system.

I thought the C700 FF was a great idea, tested it with my custom settings (worked great), however it's priced into the Sony VENICE category and folks at that level are going for Red, VENICE, or Alexa Mini/LF. Unfortunately the C700 FF demos have been... let's just say Red, VENICE, and Alexa demos are significantly better showcasing their respective cameras capabilities.

We are so close to getting a camera that doesn't have significant gotchas/flaws it will be interesting to see what they release in the near future. An A7S III with a flippy screen, less RS, better IBIS, the new AI AF, and VENICE color + 10-bit (for Sony's HDR TVs), all in one camera would make many other camera much less appealing. Will Sony release all those feature in one camera at that price point? Probably not. With Fuji's leap in video quality and features for the X-T3 (are they in on the game, lol?), it will be interesting to see what Sony does next, and what Canon will release with a more Pro version for the RF mount (think 1DX R or 5DV R etc.). One thing Sony has going for it for dual use still + video camera is their lens IS and AF are near silent, unlike Canon's, which all make noise (haven't tested the 18-80 cinezoom- is it as quiet as Sony lenses?).

After spending time with gimbals and remembering I had the most enjoyment shooting run & gun with the (relatively tiny) A7SI/II, I experimented with the iPhone X. Even in 4K vs. the 80D 1080p, it's still way too much of a drop in quality (unless you're Soderbergh with a team of (Resolve) Power Windows editors to fix the footage haha). So the DSLR/mirrorless form factor looks to be as small as it will get for a while (until (decent) computational cameras hit the market). A buddy is still happily shooting his doc on the 5D3 (that camera will probably continue to be used for many more years). Imagine if Canon allowed apps/feature-extensions (a la Magic Lantern) on future cameras and didn't cripple them? Amazing times for sure

 

[Mark Smith]

To the point of camera being at a certain place in the film hierarchy, Spike Lee’s film Black Klansman has some shots- scenes that in my estimation are camera rehearsals complete with mistakes photographed that they rolled on and some how would up being their best takes. Didn’t really affect the trajectory of the film as far as academy awards go.

 

[nutmegger]

This is not in the documentary category, but you may find this interesting.

Alfonso Cuaron won the Academy Award for Best Cinematography for ROMA, which was shot on an Alexa 65 with Arri Prime 65 lenses.

"Cuarón Tells Lubezki How He Filmed ‘Roma’ — Even One Quiet Shot Needed 45 Camera Positions"
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/roma-emmanuel-lubezki-alfonso-cuaron-cinematography-1202028167/

Enjoy.

PS
Cuaron also won the Academy Award for Best Director for ROMA. Very talented guy.

 

[puredrifting]

+1... I've tried to move on from Canon cameras for the stuff I do, but it never works for long. I just keep coming back. I was a spec chaser for a short period of time, but I learned my lesson.

I'm right there with you, although I can say I am very happy with the Fuji X-T3 as our gimbal/B camera that for some shoots where we have to travel as light as possible, it will become the A camera.
Shooting one of our subjects running an 100 mile Ultra Marathon in May in Florida and we will only be bringing two X-T3s, the C200 will stay at home. It will be a mostly gimbal shoot and we will constantly be in and out of cars and
the runners chase van. We need to be as mobile as possible as we will be following our runner for 100 miles over 27-30 hours. I'm going to drag a small tripod because we will be shooting some interviews at some poiont. We're hiring
a drone op in Florida to cover aerials and big vistas. It promises to be quite an adventure and the Fuji will be replacing the C200.

 

[Mark Smith]

What is your focus, iris, start -stop control for the XT3 when mounted on the gimbal. When I. Use my Mk2 on my gimbal I have the handgrip adapted to the right side handle of my Heiix. I can hardly imagine working with out it, though I have.

 

[puredrifting]

What is your focus, iris, start -stop control for the XT3 when mounted on the gimbal. When I. Use my Mk2 on my gimbal I have the handgrip adapted to the right side handle of my Heiix. I can hardly imagine working with out it, though I have.

Focus is the X-T3's AF although I sometimes help it out by using the touchscreen. I mostly shoot with the pretty wide focal length so shallow DOF isn't really a factor although a few times I have shot with a 50mm 1.8 almost wide open and the Fuji did pretty well. Keep in mind too that by May, I will have the Fujifilm 3.0 firmware installed that improves the AF tracking quite a bit over what it is today and today it's totally usable although not as good as the Canon AF. Iris is manual on the lens barrel with XF lenses or with the Fringer X-Mount adapter with the Canon lenses. Neither of these factors bug me, the only thing I really wish I could control from the gimabl would be camera start/stop, I, of course, have to reach up with my left hand and start stop the recording, which always puts a bobble in the gimbal movement at the heads and tails of shots but no big deal. Unlike a lot of gimabl users, I don't think NOT having all of the camera controls on the gimbal handle is a big deal. Yes, it would be a bit more convenient but none of the gimbals, to my knowledge, have the Fuji protocols for the camera to be controlled by the gimbal.

 

[delete]

Behind the Scenes of RGB (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) with Claudia Raschke

Behind the Scenes of RGB (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) with Claudia Raschke

Here's a BTS that Canon made about Claudia Raschkthe who was the DP on RGB (Ruth Bader Ginsberg).

 

[CharlesPapert]

The irony is that the C series of Canons are notable weak from an ergonomic standpoint, unless you are shooting with a bare EF lens and no accessories so the camera weighs little enough to be pushed against the shoulder. Once cine lenses or accessories come into play, it's awkward at best.

It is unfathomable to me that nearly fifty years after the Eclair (and later Aaton) defined balanced handheld cameras for documentary shooting, we are still struggling to get back to that sweet spot of low mass centered on the shoulder.

 

[jcs]

If Canon made the VF optional, then they are the same form factor as Red and Alexa Mini. I never used the VF and it looks like those doing manual focus opt for a third party VF where the camera is used on the shoulder.

A handycam format with AI AF and an excellent 6-axis IBIS would be a most fun and truly liberating way to shoot.

Camera manufacturers endorsing political or religious views won’t age well- isn’t this marketing 101? (divisive = massive loss of market)

 

[rob norton]

The irony is that the C series of Canons are notable weak from an ergonomic standpoint, unless you are shooting with a bare EF lens and no accessories so the camera weighs little enough to be pushed against the shoulder. Once cine lenses or accessories come into play, it's awkward at best.

It is unfathomable to me that nearly fifty years after the Eclair (and later Aaton) defined balanced handheld cameras for documentary shooting, we are still struggling to get back to that sweet spot of low mass centered on the shoulder.

What are your thoughts on easyrigs?

 

[Run&Gun]

The irony is that the C series of Canons are notable weak from an ergonomic standpoint, unless you are shooting with a bare EF lens and no accessories so the camera weighs little enough to be pushed against the shoulder. Once cine lenses or accessories come into play, it's awkward at best.

It is unfathomable to me that nearly fifty years after the Eclair (and later Aaton) defined balanced handheld cameras for documentary shooting, we are still struggling to get back to that sweet spot of low mass centered on the shoulder.

I've been saying similar since the 300 came out. I've always liked the image, but hated shooting with the camera. I don't get it, we've had excellent camera body designs for shooting on the shoulder for decades and when s35 sensors became "a thing", all the manufacturers lost their damn minds.

 

[Run&Gun]

What are your thoughts on easyrigs?

Speaking for myself, as I demoed one for a week or so back before Christmas, they get in the way. If you only shoot "from the hip", I can see them being useful, and the only way I seem to see them in the wild is kids shooting bare bones RED's and C cameras hanging off of them at roughly hip and chest level. Trying to shoot with a camera "on the shoulder" with one was frustrating, annoying and very limiting. I actually could not get the camera(either my F55 or VariCam) to sit on my shoulder no matter how I adjusted the tension on the line. Which is kind of ironic, considering it was originally invented to help you shoot with the camera on your shoulder. Not to mention, you look and feel like an ass while wearing the pack. Even in your house with no one looking at you.

 

[rob norton]

Speaking for myself, as I demoed one for a week or so back before Christmas, they get in the way. If you only shoot "from the hip", I can see them being useful, and the only way I seem to see them in the wild is kids shooting bare bones RED's and C cameras hanging off of them at roughly hip and chest level. Trying to shoot with a camera "on the shoulder" with one was frustrating, annoying and very limiting. I actually could not get the camera(either my F55 or VariCam) to sit on my shoulder no matter how I adjusted the tension on the line. Which is kind of ironic, considering it was originally invented to help you shoot with the camera on your shoulder. Not to mention, you look and feel like an ass while wearing the pack. Even in your house with no one looking at you.

What about shoulder height but out in front where it naturally goes?

 

[jcs]

What about shoulder height but out in front where it naturally goes?

I considered the EasyRig-like systems, then couldn't get past the dork-factor and limited movement, then considered arm+vest solutions: still too much gear/limited movement & attention-drawing, so sold the big camera* and gimbal**. My old handycams (Sony, Panasonic) had (still have!) decent IBIS, as does the 'old' Olympus mirrorless. All we really need is decent IBIS and we can shed all this complex+heavy gear.

Compact, lightweight shoulder mount with usable VF (1080p+ resolution + accurate peaking etc.) so we can easily and accurately judge 4K focus would be cool too.

* + other factors, mainly smaller cameras are producing better looks for less cost, size, and weight (vs C300 II).
** was a challenge to sell since both 'used once' (one battery was probably never used) batteries died (common issue with DJI) and had to buy a new battery in order to sell it.