C700: any good footage shot on the C700 FF?

What have you found besides "Dishful Of Dollars?"
That video does not help the cause. I will agree, Canon is particularly- unusually bad at producing projects that are supposed to highlight their cameras. After watching "Dishful" I walked away without a single moment of interest in the camera. Off color skin tones, blown highlights in the sky- blame the grade- blame the dp and director- blame the producer- blame the transcode for Vimeo- blame every element we have to deal with on a daily basis; but give us great skin tone and a tight, not blown out image. It's a camera promo after all.
 
klk said:
What have you found besides "Dishful Of Dollars?"
That video does not help the cause. I will agree, Canon is particularly- unusually bad at producing projects that are supposed to highlight their cameras. After watching "Dishful" I walked away without a single moment of interest in the camera. Off color skin tones, blown highlights in the sky- blame the grade- blame the dp and director- blame the producer- blame the transcode for Vimeo- blame every element we have to deal with on a daily basis; but give us great skin tone and a tight, not blown out image. It's a camera promo after all.
Click to expand...

That's it, that's pretty much it.
 
It just started shipping...anyone that has been shooting with the camera is most likely not on forums/posting online, or would be a very rare find.
 
I created a thread discussing some of the issues I found in Dishful, and after testing the camera at Samy's, didn't see any of those issues in the viewfinder or HDTV being used for monitoring. This was a pre-production camera, and it's possible the final release version is different (would expect to be even better if different). I'd like to examine recorded material from the release camera in both XFAVC and RAW to compare against Alexa 65 and LF footage (available for download at ARRI). The Alexa footage is super clean, super detailed, and looks more like 'video' than film, however I understand why (lighting, lenses, diffusion (lack thereof), and more creative grading is needed to get a cinematic look).

I was pleasantly surprised that my favorite C300 II custom settings looked spectacular on the C700 FF. How do these skin tones look? http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?361238-C300-II-vs-C700-FF-vs-Alexa-(skin-tones)

The C700 FF looks as good or better, and will have superior fine detail because of the True 4K sensor (5.9K downsampled to 4K). Since Canon already has a relationship with Apple supporting ProRes, I think it would be a huge win to support ProRes RAW internally, since the camera doesn't support RGB 444 12-bit in 4K (I now shoot everything in 2K RGB 444 12-bit on the C300 II as it keys green screen better than 4K YUV 422 10-bit, and 2K RGB 12-bit upscaled to 4K and sharpened looks just as good on YouTube). On the business side I could see an argument not to support ProRes RAW internally to prevent loss of sales for the RAW recorder, however I think the reduced price of having compressed RAW internally available would have the potential to sell a lot more cameras, especially given the strong competition from the Sony VENICE near that price point.

While post cropping C300 II 4K to 2K is very soft* (and aliased), I'd expect the C700 FF's 4K to 2K crop to be excellent, highly detailed and with little or no visible aliasing (mathematically possible depending on OLPF and processing method). Recording 5.9K RAW would provide even more post cropping possibilities using a more advanced desktop deBayering algorithm vs. in camera. Again, ProRes RAW could really help sales potential vs. requiring the extra Codex recorder and massive files (which could be useful for SFX productions needing every last bit of detail).


* reason: the 4K sensor can only produce 2.7K of real detail before aliasing.
 
jcs said:
I created a thread discussing some of the issues I found in Dishful, and after testing the camera at Samy's, didn't see any of those issues in the viewfinder or HDTV being used for monitoring. This was a pre-production camera, and it's possible the final release version is different (would expect to be even better if different). I'd like to examine recorded material from the release camera in both XFAVC and RAW to compare against Alexa 65 and LF footage (available for download at ARRI). The Alexa footage is super clean, super detailed, and looks more like 'video' than film, however I understand why (lighting, lenses, diffusion (lack thereof), and more creative grading is needed to get a cinematic look).

I was pleasantly surprised that my favorite C300 II custom settings looked spectacular on the C700 FF. How do these skin tones look? http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?361238-C300-II-vs-C700-FF-vs-Alexa-(skin-tones)

The C700 FF looks as good or better, and will have superior fine detail because of the True 4K sensor (5.9K downsampled to 4K). Since Canon already has a relationship with Apple supporting ProRes, I think it would be a huge win to support ProRes RAW internally, since the camera doesn't support RGB 444 12-bit in 4K (I now shoot everything in 2K RGB 444 12-bit on the C300 II as it keys green screen better than 4K YUV 422 10-bit, and 2K RGB 12-bit upscaled to 4K and sharpened looks just as good on YouTube). On the business side I could see an argument not to support ProRes RAW internally to prevent loss of sales for the RAW recorder, however I think the reduced price of having compressed RAW internally available would have the potential to sell a lot more cameras, especially given the strong competition from the Sony VENICE near that price point.

While post cropping C300 II 4K to 2K is very soft* (and aliased), I'd expect the C700 FF's 4K to 2K crop to be excellent, highly detailed and with little or no visible aliasing (mathematically possible depending on OLPF and processing method). Recording 5.9K RAW would provide even more post cropping possibilities using a more advanced desktop deBayering algorithm vs. in camera. Again, ProRes RAW could really help sales potential vs. requiring the extra Codex recorder and massive files (which could be useful for SFX productions needing every last bit of detail).


* reason: the 4K sensor can only produce 2.7K of real detail before aliasing.
Click to expand...
Thanks John for the informative post and great seeing you the other night!.....yes, and already liking the C700, I was quite happy with what I saw with the C700FF.....

Jim Martin
CinemaWorks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top