C100: c100 Mark II and possible successor

I sold my C100 before the MKII came out and have been sitting waiting for a replacement. I use the C300 MKI at work and it's still fine for broadcast stuff I do but I don't see myself getting the C100 MKII myself. Like others here have stated I need a camera that will last into the UHD phase and that is for me the Sony FS7. I was thinking FS5 but I dont want to deal with long gop codec's. AVCHD was a pain wit the way it works. File name conventions and 8bit 420 ect. I also dont want to have to use a external recorder. I can deal with the Sony look. It doesnt bother me. I grade everything anyway. Just as long as it's white balanced I can get the look I want easy. It's a lot of camera for $8K and I can see owning it for a few years unlike the C100 MKII.

The URSA Mini is still on the table but good god! It seems it will never be released! Plus the capped ISO at 1600 is a concern.
 
Erik Naso said:
I sold my C100 before the MKII came out and have been sitting waiting for a replacement. I use the C300 MKI at work and it's still fine for broadcast stuff I do but I don't see myself getting the C100 MKII myself. Like others here have stated I need a camera that will last into the UHD phase and that is for me the Sony FS7. I was thinking FS5 but I dont want to deal with long gop codec's. AVCHD was a pain wit the way it works. File name conventions and 8bit 420 ect. I also dont want to have to use a external recorder. I can deal with the Sony look. It doesnt bother me. I grade everything anyway. Just as long as it's white balanced I can get the look I want easy. It's a lot of camera for $8K and I can see owning it for a few years unlike the C100 MKII.

The URSA Mini is still on the table but good god! It seems it will never be released! Plus the capped ISO at 1600 is a concern.
Click to expand...

Good points, Erik. Just curious, while we're talking about 4k... I've seen quite a bit of your work, read many of your reviews, and I think many of the users on here take your word seriously. How much do you really use 4K in day-to-day work? Would you say you're going with 4K because you want to future proof your camera, or is there a legitimate demand for it among your customer base? And from that demand, do your customers really know what they're getting into when and if they demand 4K? How much of the stuff that you shoot in 4K is actually shown/projected/released in 4K?
 
I shoot in UHD mainly for post reframing. No one has asked for it yet. I look at it this way. It's better to shoot at a higher resolution than what you deliver in. We did this with SD back in the day. Same thing is happening now. Shoot in UHD and deliver in HD. Right now for me buying a 4K camera is mainly for future proofing. If a project came along that had a long shelf life then UHD is the way to go.
I don't have a crystal ball and cant honestly say when the ask will start coming in for UHD but the web supports it with YouTube and Vimeo will too soon. UHD TV's are ready to be bought and they are all smart TV's with internet connectivity. Netflix and others are streaming some 4K and more will be coming too.

Local and national networks in the US are going to be slow to change in fact I dont see local broadcast going 4K at all. It's just not that much better than HD and the cable companies can barely get you 1080 into your home now. The difference isn't that apparent either like the SD to HD conversion was and the cost is astronomical to upgrade a TV stations format. Just doesn't make financial sense until the networks do it then it will be likely but again I just don't see it here in the US anytime soon.

In a nut shell it's future proofing because the future could be next week.
 
Last edited:
jthabel said:
Here's a nice, basic little article that sums up the pitfalls of 4K. I've read other similar articles about how surprisingly few mastering houses can (or are willing) to even deal with 4k. http://masteringfilm.com/the-problem-with-4k/
Click to expand...
It's a dated article. 4K TV's are everywhere and sold for as low as $280 for a 39" new and an average internet speed can stream at least 1440p (2.5K), with the higher quality broadband at well beyond 4K (~ 25Mbps needed, many services offer 40-70 as a mid-tier package, with the high end at around 300).

Erik Naso said:
.... I don't have a crystal ball and cant honestly say when the ask will start coming in for UHD but the web supports it with YouTube and Vimeo will too soon. UHD TV's are ready to be bought and they are all smart TV's with internet connectivity. Netflix and others are streaming some 4K and more will be coming too.

Local and national networks in the US are going to be slow to change in fact I dont see local broadcast going 4K at all. It's just not that much better than HD and the cable companies can barely get you 1080 into your home now. The difference isn't that apparent either like the SD to HD conversion was and the cost is astronomical to upgrade a TV stations format. Just doesn't make financial sense until the networks do it then it will be likely but again I just don't see it here in the US anytime soon.

In a nut shell it's future proofing because the future could be next week.
Click to expand...
The in-studio news pieces - your "60 Minutes" and so on - could do 4K immediately, as there are 4K and even 8K studio cameras. Not that I want to see Charlie Rose in 4K but you'd think it's not a difficult task in a controlled situation. Trials of the over-the-air 4K systems have been conducted successfully as well. If they can squeeze a full UHD signal (+ two lower quality mobile streams) into 6 Mhz channel with HEVC, then there's room for ten of these under the bandwidth current allocation rules.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/s...conducted-for-atsc-30-4k-ultra-hd-video/24395

And Comcast is testing a 4K set top box with the HDR technology.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/co.../2015-10-27?utm_medium=nl&utm_source=internal
 
Erik Naso said:
I shoot in UHD mainly for post reframing. No one has asked for it yet. I look at it this way. It's better to shoot at a higher resolution than what you deliver in. We did this with SD back in the day. Same thing is happening now. Shoot in UHD and deliver in HD. Right now for me buying a 4K camera is mainly for future proofing.
Click to expand...

I agree with this and also if you look at what is driving the market now as regards TV/Film....it's Netflix, Hulu, Amazon & Facebook video....what will stop UHD for the foreseeable future is bandwidth....and internet speed.

Who would want to use 4 times bandwidth and wait 4 times for uploads etc...

HD is more than enough for the internet and I don't see that changing for quiet a while...which means it will be very interesting to see where Canon goes featurewise to make someone move from the Canon C100 mark II..
 
^Move from MKI to MKII? I would have thought that movement is done and nearly over with. I haven't had the MKII but for a 1/2 year and already thinking on to next Summer and a possible refresh then...
 
EIREHotspur said:
I agree with this and also if you look at what is driving the market now as regards TV/Film....it's Netflix, Hulu, Amazon & Facebook video....what will stop UHD for the foreseeable future is bandwidth....and internet speed.

Who would want to use 4 times bandwidth and wait 4 times for uploads etc...

HD is more than enough for the internet and I don't see that changing for quiet a while...which means it will be very interesting to see where Canon goes featurewise to make someone move from the Canon C100 mark II..
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

Just because UHD is 4 times bigger doesn't mean the bandwidth to get will be either.

VP9 and other codecs for delivery will ensure that the quality will be there without the bandwidth hit.
 
DLD said:
It's a dated article. 4K TV's are everywhere and sold for as low as $280 for a 39" new and an average internet speed can stream at least 1440p (2.5K), with the higher quality broadband at well beyond 4K (~ 25Mbps needed, many services offer 40-70 as a mid-tier package, with the high end at around 300).
Click to expand...

Well, the article came out in 2014, so I might not call it dated, but yes, 4k HW is definitely cheaper and more available now, but I think many of the points made in the article remain:

- Using 4K in post is an expensive pain. Quadruples your required storage space, requires more processing power, etc. Seems like only higher end productions (with the budget and means to support it) would benefit. I don't personally known any colleagues who are willing to deal with the expense for the minimal reward. And even if you're downrezzing to HD for your final product, you still have to store/backup your 4K content if you truly intend to future proof your work. You know that 250gb SSD drive you just paid 200 bucks for to edit your 20 minute short film shot in ProRes? How would you like to spend, oh, 600 dollars instead to buy a 1TB drive to deal with it in 4k? The $$$ add up real fast.
- 4K might be more prevalent in the consumer market now, but you're still far more likely to watch HD content. I swung by Best Buy earlier this week and checked out some of their 4K TVs, and the big marketing slugline on many of these 4K units seemed to be "See your HD content uprezzed... etc". In other words, the companies know that you won't be watching much 4K any time soon... but here, you can uprez!
- Even most movie theaters only project 2K. They just dumped a fortune into upgrading to digital formats. They aren't going to do it again for 4k anytime soon.

Long story short -- sure, 4K will eventually get here, be the standard, etc. You'll even be able to watch it on Vimeo, Netflix, etc in the short term. But the big changes aren't going to happen anytime soon. It'll be many years before 4k is everywhere. Just like it was many years before HD was everywhere. I doubt the kind of end products that most of the ops on this forum create will be judged by the standard viewer by whether or not they were shot in HD or 4K. But maybe I'm wrong.

Oh, and discussions about 6k and 8k just make me laugh.
 
Last edited:
Erik Naso said:
Local and national networks in the US are going to be slow to change in fact I dont see local broadcast going 4K at all. It's just not that much better than HD and the cable companies can barely get you 1080 into your home now. The difference isn't that apparent either like the SD to HD conversion was and the cost is astronomical to upgrade a TV stations format. Just doesn't make financial sense until the networks do it then it will be likely but again I just don't see it here in the US anytime soon.

In a nut shell it's future proofing because the future could be next week.
Click to expand...

Another reason to go the 4k+ route is if you're shooting a spec pilot or something that you want to end up on a streaming service. Netflix requires all of their originals to be shot in at least 4k now.
 
Fahnon said:
Another reason to go the 4k+ route is if you're shooting a spec pilot or something that you want to end up on a streaming service. Netflix requires all of their originals to be shot in at least 4k now.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that if you have means to produce something worthy of Netflix consideration, you'll probably also have a budget that can afford you the use of a RED, ARRI, etc, along with a ton of other things. If you're a talented filmmaker just trying to get noticed, I doubt you'd be judged on whether or not your work was shot on 4K vs HD. Which is what I'm getting at here... If you're shooting something for a production that you know is going to end up on the big screen, streaming through Netflix, etc, then we're talking about a completely different playing field, and sure, shoot in 4K. I'm not intimately familiar with all the Ops on this forum, but I'm guessing most are operating in a realm where most of their work will do just fine in HD. I'd love to hear from someone who deals with a regular 4K workflow, though, just for their perspective on things.
 
jthabel said:
Well, the article came out in 2014, so I might not call it dated, but yes, 4k HW is definitely cheaper and more available now, but I think many of the points made in the article remain:

- Using 4K in post is an expensive pain. Quadruples your required storage space, requires more processing power, etc. Seems like only higher end productions (with the budget and means to support it) would benefit. I don't personally known any colleagues who are willing to deal with the expense for the minimal reward. And even if you're downrezzing to HD for your final product, you still have to store/backup your 4K content if you truly intend to future proof your work. You know that 250gb SSD drive you just paid 200 bucks for to edit your 20 minute short film shot in ProRes? How would you like to spend, oh, 600 dollars instead to buy a 1TB drive to deal with it in 4k? The $$$ add up real fast.
- 4K might be more prevalent in the consumer market now, but you're still far more likely to watch HD content. I swung by Best Buy earlier this week and checked out some of their 4K TVs, and the big marketing slugline on many of these 4K units seemed to be "See your HD content uprezzed... etc". In other words, the companies know that you won't be watching much 4K any time soon... but here, you can uprez!
- Even most movie theaters only project 2K. They just dumped a fortune into upgrading to digital formats. They aren't going to do it again for 4k anytime soon.

Long story short -- sure, 4K will eventually get here, be the standard, etc. You'll even be able to watch it on Vimeo, Netflix, etc in the short term. But the big changes aren't going to happen anytime soon. It'll be many years before 4k is everywhere. Just like it was many years before HD was everywhere. I doubt the kind of end products that most of the ops on this forum create will be judged by the standard viewer by whether or not they were shot in HD or 4K. But maybe I'm wrong.

Oh, and discussions about 6k and 8k just make me laugh.
Click to expand...

I'll reply.

A) If your client is happy with 1080p, then by all means. Eric is doing local news in San Diego and regional TV news is not requiring any more than 1080p at the moment. And there's no reason to spend own money om something that isn't necessary, aside of the reframing.

B) Last year, there were ~ 11 million UHD units shipped in the US out of ~ 30 million TV's in total. With prices dropping to below $1,000 for reasonable quality models (55" 4K LG OLED is down to $3,000), there will be probably around 30-35 million UHD sets sold before the next Christmas, putting one of them inside more than half of the US homes. Plus, there are a bunch of computer monitors and laptops with the 4K display.

BTW, the UHD prices have fallen a lot faster than on the HD sets during the 2000-2006 because, back then, there was also a transition from the tubes and rear projections to flatter RPTV's and then to the first/second generation LCD's. This time, the pixel density is old news (39" UHD is 100 PPI, while many smartphones are over 500) and the massive fabs required to produce the panels are underutilized anyway. Similarly, in terms of image acquisition, two years ago, the low price leader in 4K was 1D C at $12,000. Now, one can buy a Panasonic 4K zoom for $600. G7 is $800 and so on.

C) Editing, a $1,000-$1,500 2015 PC with a decent video card can edit 4K just fine. Subsequently, footage can be offloaded to a HDD, which are pretty cheap these days.

D) UHD Blu-Ray players from Sony and Panasonic should be out within three months. (Samsung is in the vicinity as well) Every popular film that was shot on 35mm-70mm film has already been scanned into 4K, graded and digitized for a UHD Blu-Ray release. The movie studios are obviously waiting for the players to be shipped in quantity to follow up.
 
jthabel said:
I'd argue that if you have means to produce something worthy of Netflix consideration, you'll probably also have a budget that can afford you the use of a RED, ARRI, etc, along with a ton of other things. If you're a talented filmmaker just trying to get noticed, I doubt you'd be judged on whether or not your work was shot on 4K vs HD. Which is what I'm getting at here... If you're shooting something for a production that you know is going to end up on the big screen, streaming through Netflix, etc, then we're talking about a completely different playing field, and sure, shoot in 4K. I'm not intimately familiar with all the Ops on this forum, but I'm guessing most are operating in a realm where most of their work will do just fine in HD. I'd love to hear from someone who deals with a regular 4K workflow, though, just for their perspective on things.
Click to expand...

You're right of course; I was simply pointing out that if you were going to produce something, even a small indie thing that you don't know where it'll end up, that Netflix won't even look at it as an original if it's not 4k+ (I'm sure they'd make an exception if you already had a following).

Also interesting is that because of the 4k+ restriction, Netflix has essentially ruled out the mighty Alexa as a camera on their originals because they don't allow upscaling. RED, Sony and Canon only at that level...
 
DLD said:
I'll reply.

A) If your client is happy with 1080p, then by all means. Eric is doing local news in San Diego and regional TV news is not requiring any more than 1080p at the moment. And there's no reason to spend own money om something that isn't necessary, aside of the reframing.

B) Last year, there were ~ 11 million UHD units shipped in the US out of ~ 30 million TV's in total. With prices dropping to below $1,000 for reasonable quality models (55" 4K LG OLED is down to $3,000), there will be probably around 30-35 million UHD sets sold before the next Christmas, putting one of them inside more than half of the US homes. Plus, there are a bunch of computer monitors and laptops with the 4K display.

BTW, the UHD prices have fallen a lot faster than on the HD sets during the 2000-2006 because, back then, there was also a transition from the tubes and rear projections to flatter RPTV's and then to the first/second generation LCD's. This time, the pixel density is old news (39" UHD is 100 PPI, while many smartphones are over 500) and the massive fabs required to produce the panels are underutilized anyway. Similarly, in terms of image acquisition, two years ago, the low price leader in 4K was 1D C at $12,000. Now, one can buy a Panasonic 4K zoom for $600. G7 is $800 and so on.

C) Editing, a $1,000-$1,500 2015 PC with a decent video card can edit 4K just fine. Subsequently, footage can be offloaded to a HDD, which are pretty cheap these days.

D) UHD Blu-Ray players from Sony and Panasonic should be out within three months. (Samsung is in the vicinity as well) Every popular film that was shot on 35mm-70mm film has already been scanned into 4K, graded and digitized for a UHD Blu-Ray release. The movie studios are obviously waiting for the players to be shipped in quantity to follow up.
Click to expand...

You guys all make good points, and I'm not trying to put my head in the sand regarding the inevitable progression of 4K. For me, this discussion started about it's practical application in the here and now, and in the immediate years to come. While I have a few doubts about some of the claims mentioned in the reply above (I'm almost certain that we won't be seeing 4K in half the homes in America before next Christmas -- I mean really, how often does the average Joe buy a new TV or monitor?), I think it's safe to say that HD will still be the prevalent resolution for at least the next few years. People who are investing 8-9k into an FS7 right now will likely be able to get a much cheaper solution from the proceeding camera gen at a fraction of the cost. Media storage, processing speed, band width speed, etc will likely also be significantly cheaper at that time. In other words, unless you have a highly specialized immediate need for 4K, or you expect that something you shoot today will need to be uprezzed to 4K in the year 2020 when the format is more mainstream, then why waste your money? Seems like this message is especially important for younger ops who are thinking about buying their first cameras, setting up their first editing PCs, etc. You don't need to be a step ahead just because you can be. I've never personally used a camera body for more than five years. It eventually breaks and I need to have it replaced, or I need to finally upgrade because of the inevitable onset of some new tech. Right now, there's no need for me (or most people, I feel) to use or foot the expense of 4K given it's minimal or even non-existent return. In three or four years that might be a very different story. But if I was advising someone who was getting into this biz to spend either 8K on an FS7 or 2K on a lightly used C100 with 6k worth of trimmin's (lenses, sticks, slider, etc) that could be passed on to whatever next gen camera body pops up in 2018, I'd recommend the latter.
 
It all depends on what you need. The new cameras that are 4K also have better onboard recording codecs and 10bit 422. This alone is far better than say a C100 MKI or MKII. To get a better codec you need to add an external recorder and that isn't always ideal.
Also they have higher frame rate options in full HD and UHD. The FS5 at around $5K has a weak codec as well. 8bit 420, so it's not as clear cut as HD or 4K in the new cameras. Canon is stingy with features and I really hate that. I hope this practice will change.
People need to look at the spec sheet and make informed decisions based on their needs it just so happens that the new UHD 4K cameras are all around better at HD too but at a price.
 
I am a freelance filmmaker in Austria and make my living with commercials, corporate films etc.
With the help of the austrian film commissions i am able to produce my third feature film now.
The movies i make are highly independent and very low budget, but i am thankful to be able to release them in Austria/Germany and Swizzerland. They also get theatrical releases.

When it comes to cameras, It is very important for me to own one, so that I can go out and shoot when needed, not only for my commercial work, but especially for the features.
It is immensely comfortable to me, being able to call up an actor, pick him up, and shoot some quick 2nd unit stuff, or filler material like sunsets or whatever , whenever I want to.

My first film was shot on a Canon XHA-1 and a XLH-1, the second an a Sony fs100 and now we shoot on a C100 Mk II.
After watching films like "Act of Valor", "Like Crazy" or "Blue Ruin", i was totally inspired to shoot on affordable large sensor cameras.
4k is irrelevant, story is not. Performance, Set/Costume Design, Light, Sound, Music etc. These are the things that have to be thought of way more than the Color Space or Resolution.

If clients need 4k, then rent.
No one needs 4k at home, it doesn't even work for most viewing distances at people's homes.
And theatres, at least here in the german speaking region, don't project 4k either.
The theatres have no interest to upgrade their tech every couple of years.
First they had to got to digital projectors between 2005 and 2008, then to 3D starting 2009, then to some degrees to IMAX.
They stay on that tech as long as they can, and they use the bulbs of their projectors for as long as they can, many don't really care about accurate colors or brightness of the image. Not to mention sound.
When i release my stuff theatrically, I'm shocked at how low some big theatre companies set their standards.
We spent half a year color correcting and sound mixing and in 8 out of 10 theatres, the film looks different and sounds different from what we actually ended up with and payed a lot of money to grade and mix professionally.

We had a premiere in a theatre once, which has around 15 Screens and the only technician for the whole place was a 17 year old teenager who could import the dcp files on the server, press play and turn the sound louder or quieter. That's it. Those were his capabilities. And he ran the whole place behind the scenes. But he costs almost nothing.
The projectionists are gone and with them a lot of care about a beautiful cinematic experience.
Of course not every theater works that way, but for my experience, way too many do.

If you create fictional features or shorts and you want people to get interested in your film, you need a great story.
Put your money in the best bang for buck camera and then spend the rest in your actors, art department etc.
The Viewer doesn't care about your dynamic range, resolution or color space, but if the script sucks, the actor doesn't deliver, the sound is bad and your scene setting is unbelievable, then they care.

We work with a C100 Mk II and use the AVCHD. Everybody says that codec sucks and breaks up in grading. Well, i love the image out of that camera and it's a wonderful companion for me. And besides the ergonomics and everything, the most amazing feature from Canon is it's Video Autofocus System. It's amazing and gets better with every new model. No one really talks about that, it's always about 4k and bits and codec, but this AF technology is one of the main reasons why I am not interested to switch to another brand. It makes shooting way much easier and fun.
 
Last edited:
SteveFurry said:
I am a freelance filmmaker in Austria and make my living with commercials, corporate films etc.
With the help of the austrian film commissions i am able to produce my third feature film now.
The movies i make are highly independent and very low budget, but i am thankful to be able to release them in Austria/Germany and Swizzerland. They also get theatrically releases.

When it comes to cameras, It is very important for me to own one, so that I can go out and shoot when needed, not only for my commercial work, but especially for the features.
It is immensely comfortable to me, being able to call up an actor, pick him up, and shoot some quick 2nd unit stuff, or filler material like sunsets or whatever whenever I want to.

My first film was shot on a Canon XHA-1 and a XLH-1, the second an a Sony fs100 and now we shoot on a C100 Mk II.
After watching films like "Act of Valor", "Like Crazy" or "Blue Ruin", i was totally inspired to shoot on affordable large sensor cameras.
4k is irrelevant, story is. Performance, Set/Costume Design, Light, Sound, Music etc. These are the things that have to be thought of way more than the Color Space or Resolution.

If clients need 4k, then rent.
No one needs 4k at home, it doesn't even work for most viewing distances at people's homes.
And theatres, at least here in the german speaking region, don't project 4k either.
The theatres have no interest to upgrade their tech every couple of years.
First they had to got to digital projectors between 2005 and 2008, then to 3D starting 2009, then to some degrees to IMAX.
They stay on that tech as long as they can, and they use the bulbs of their projectors for as long as they can, many don't really care about accurate colors or brightness of the image. Not to mention sound.
When i release my stuff theatrically, I'm shocked at how low some big theatre companies set their standards.
We spent half a year color correcting and sound mixing and in 8 of 10 theatres, the film looks different and sounds different from what we actually ended up with and payed a lot of money to grade and mix professionally.

We had a premiere in a theatre with around 15 Screens and the only technician for the whole place was a 17 year old teenager who could import the dcp files on the server, press play and turn the sound louder or quieter. That's it. Those were his capabilities. And he ran the whole place behind the scenes. But he costs almost nothing.
The projectionists are gone and with them a lot of care about a beautiful cinematic experience.
Of course not every theater works that way, but for my experience, way too many do.

If you create fictional features or shorts and you wan't people to get interested in your film, you need a great story.
Put your money in the best bang for buck camera and then spend the rest in your actors, art department etc.
The Viewer doesn't care about your dynamic range, resolution or color space, but if the script sucks, the actor doesn't deliver, the sound is bad and your scene setting is unbelievable, then they care.

We work with a C100 Mk II and use the AVCHD. Everybody says that codec sucks and breaks up in grading. Well, i love the image out of that camera and it's a wonderful companion for me. And besides the ergonomics and everything, the most amazing feature from Canon is it's Video Autofocus System. It's amazing and gets better with every new model. No one really talks about that, it's always about 4k and bits and codec, but this AF technology is one of the main reasons why I am not interested to switch to another brand. It makes shooting way much easier and fun.
Click to expand...

I'm not a film maker, but have been following this post since I have a C100 as well. Your post makes the most sense of all that has been said so far. I actually haven't seen a 4K image that I like more than what I see coming out of the C100. I know it doesn't matter what I think since the industry is headed in that direction anyway...... just sayin.
 
SteveFurry said:
I am a freelance filmmaker in Austria and make my living with commercials, corporate films etc.
With the help of the austrian film commissions i am able to produce my third feature film now.
The movies i make are highly independent and very low budget, but i am thankful to be able to release them in Austria/Germany and Swizzerland. They also get theatrical releases.

When it comes to cameras, It is very important for me to own one, so that I can go out and shoot when needed, not only for my commercial work, but especially for the features.
It is immensely comfortable to me, being able to call up an actor, pick him up, and shoot some quick 2nd unit stuff, or filler material like sunsets or whatever , whenever I want to.

My first film was shot on a Canon XHA-1 and a XLH-1, the second an a Sony fs100 and now we shoot on a C100 Mk II.
After watching films like "Act of Valor", "Like Crazy" or "Blue Ruin", i was totally inspired to shoot on affordable large sensor cameras.
4k is irrelevant, story is not. Performance, Set/Costume Design, Light, Sound, Music etc. These are the things that have to be thought of way more than the Color Space or Resolution.

If clients need 4k, then rent.
No one needs 4k at home, it doesn't even work for most viewing distances at people's homes.
And theatres, at least here in the german speaking region, don't project 4k either.
The theatres have no interest to upgrade their tech every couple of years.
First they had to got to digital projectors between 2005 and 2008, then to 3D starting 2009, then to some degrees to IMAX.
They stay on that tech as long as they can, and they use the bulbs of their projectors for as long as they can, many don't really care about accurate colors or brightness of the image. Not to mention sound.
When i release my stuff theatrically, I'm shocked at how low some big theatre companies set their standards.
We spent half a year color correcting and sound mixing and in 8 out of 10 theatres, the film looks different and sounds different from what we actually ended up with and payed a lot of money to grade and mix professionally.

We had a premiere in a theatre once, which has around 15 Screens and the only technician for the whole place was a 17 year old teenager who could import the dcp files on the server, press play and turn the sound louder or quieter. That's it. Those were his capabilities. And he ran the whole place behind the scenes. But he costs almost nothing.
The projectionists are gone and with them a lot of care about a beautiful cinematic experience.
Of course not every theater works that way, but for my experience, way too many do.

If you create fictional features or shorts and you want people to get interested in your film, you need a great story.
Put your money in the best bang for buck camera and then spend the rest in your actors, art department etc.
The Viewer doesn't care about your dynamic range, resolution or color space, but if the script sucks, the actor doesn't deliver, the sound is bad and your scene setting is unbelievable, then they care.

We work with a C100 Mk II and use the AVCHD. Everybody says that codec sucks and breaks up in grading. Well, i love the image out of that camera and it's a wonderful companion for me. And besides the ergonomics and everything, the most amazing feature from Canon is it's Video Autofocus System. It's amazing and gets better with every new model. No one really talks about that, it's always about 4k and bits and codec, but this AF technology is one of the main reasons why I am not interested to switch to another brand. It makes shooting way much easier and fun.
Click to expand...

LOL
 
Users are asking for 4K to give themselves more creative options not for 4K deliveries to clients at this point.
I'm glad I am shooting 4K when I need to put some post stabilization on a shot. I'm glad I have 4K when I get caught under lensed for a shot as I know I can punch in in post. It has allowed me to pull two safe shots out of one camera angle and take more risks with a 2nd angle. No one needs 4K but just like higher frame rates its a great tool to have and I personally want as many tools as I can when I'm working.
 
FrameFarmMedia said:
Users are asking for 4K to give themselves more creative options not for 4K deliveries to clients at this point.
I'm glad I am shooting 4K when I need to put some post stabilization on a shot. I'm glad I have 4K when I get caught under lensed for a shot as I know I can punch in in post. It has allowed me to pull two safe shots out of one camera angle and take more risks with a 2nd angle. No one needs 4K but just like higher frame rates its a great tool to have and I personally want as many tools as I can when I'm working.
Click to expand...

What 4K camera do use use?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top