C200: C200 more filmic than Red One MX?

[Barry1908]

With the pursuit for the filmlook being the highest praise of a camera, would the C200 come close to the 10 year old Red One? Or is it a case of we mainly saw great work from great DP’s with early access to the tools back in the day that made it look film like ? Question two. If the RED had NDs would it be better than Ursa Mini Pro ?

Barry

 

[AndreeOnline]

With the pursuit for the filmlook being the highest praise of a camera, would the C200 come close to the 10 year old Red One?

In the wrong hands, no.

 

[jcs]

Or is it a case of we mainly saw great work from great DP’s with early access to the tools back in the day that made it look film like?

Always true regardless of camera.

Does this look filmic? If so why? If not why?

Take whatever camera you have, even a cellphone, and practice making it look like film, and then practice making look like commercial / video / old VHS / 8mm etc. Once you learn this, you'll stop questioning film looks for specific cameras. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+film+look

 

[Barry1908]

In the wrong hands, no.

Thanks JCS but I find slowmo takes the edge off any camera and isn’t a good judgment. I’m talking about shooting in anger, day in day out examples where your essentially doing “a job”. I guess I’m echoing another discussion where it was decided that arri and red are the two consistent “film looks”... Red one is still 4k so it could be a good choice (having only shot with one for an hour or so on second unit I’m not sure...

 

[AndreeOnline]

And to be clear, this:

In the wrong hands, no.

Is another way of saying:

Of course it can be as filmic—if you know what you're doing.

Any camera with 11-12 stops of DR that can record with a logarithmic transfer curve to a robust codec can be made to look filmic.

On some cameras you might only need a LUT to get it to Rec.709 and whatever current look is popular. Some cameras might produce images that need a bit more massage. But the filmic look is mainly created on set with lighting and design, and then you capture that in a format that doesn't bake stuff like contrast into the image.

And of course: stuff like framing, camera movement and so on also has a huge impact.

But to circle back to your question: the C200 will not stand in the way between you and filmic images.

 

[AlkaliDigital]

I would say the RAW image is on par dynamic range wise with the MX sensor. The C200 sensor overall IQ is superior to the MX. C200 Lowlight is far superior to the MX and Dragon sensors. It is closer to Red Gemini in that aspect. I have owned many different Red flavors over the years. You can definitely get an amazing image with the C200...and it’s much lighter, cheaper, and a million times more convenient to shoot than a Red package.

 

[puredrifting]

I would say the RAW image is on par dynamic range wise with the MX sensor. The C200 sensor overall IQ is superior to the MX. C200 Lowlight is far superior to the MX and Dragon sensors. It is closer to Red Gemini in that aspect. I have owned many different Red flavors over the years. You can definitely get an amazing image with the C200...and it’s much lighter, cheaper, and a million times more convenient to shoot than a Red package.

These mirror my experience shooting my C200 against a borrowed RED EPIC Dragon last year, shot them side by side. RED looked good, but so did the C200 and it was LEAGUES simpler to use.

 

[NorBro]

I think the DSMC2 cameras are very to easy; it's the accessories and the minor quirks that are the PITA, IMO.

Besides sometimes things not working right and burning through batteries and mags, all of the major settings/info are right there in the upper/lower row and the camera is filled with tons of features to make life easier based on preference (exposure tools, focusing tools, etc).

If we're talking convenience...then definitely. Just the better battery life and option to shoot more on the cards (although the C200 isn't the best example here) makes it a more enjoyable experience.

 

[Barry1908]

These mirror my experience shooting my C200 against a borrowed RED EPIC Dragon last year, shot them side by side. RED looked good, but so did the C200 and it was LEAGUES simpler to use.

As always , appreciate the expert feedback from those who have used the gear and have higher end experience than I. JCS Norbro Alkali Andrew thanks... I would ask puredrifting, if a mid level person, mostly corporate with a softbox , 3 ish point lighting, like me would shoot both side by side, would I be looking at a pretty similar end result... or am I kidding myself that I could shoot social network level with a bit of extra elbow grease...

 

[Spartacus]

As always , appreciate the expert feedback from those who have used the gear and have higher end experience than I. JCS Norbro Alkali Andrew thanks... I would ask puredrifting, if a mid level person, mostly corporate with a softbox , 3 ish point lighting, like me would shoot both side by side, would I be looking at a pretty similar end result... or am I kidding myself that I could shoot social network level with a bit of extra elbow grease...

Face/object tracking AF and internal ND alone would make me choose a C200 over a RED for "mid level corporate" projects you seem to hint at any given day. If you add RAW, know how to work with existing light and know how to grade the picture, the image will be indistinguishable from "high end corporate" projects.
To limit the look of The Social Network to the use of a RED camera would be an insult to Fincher, Cronenweth and everyone else involved though.

 

[puredrifting]

Face/object tracking AF and internal ND alone would make me choose a C200 over a RED for "mid level corporate" projects you seem to hint at any given day. If you add RAW, know how to work with existing light and know how to grade the picture, the image will be indistinguishable from "high end corporate" projects.
To limit the look of The Social Network to the use of a RED camera would be an insult to Fincher, Cronenweth and everyone else involved though.

This^^^^^^^RED's IMHO, are for people with a camera crew, ACs who will take care of, setup and maintain the camera. They are terrible for OMB, although they can be used by those stubborn few who insist. No internal NDs, poor audio quality, various weird RED only quirks that reminded me of shooting with an Arri BL4 in the day. Film cameras were that way, a lot of gotchas and arcane operational issues if you don't set things up in the way the camera prefers. My production partner owns a Scarlet and when we had the Epic, he had to walk me through some of the RED only issues and they were a PITA to deal with. Also, the Dragon sensor was terrible in anything not brightly lit or outdoors, amazingly noisy. I hear the Gemini sensor mitigates this but...The C200 us quite happy to shoot at ISO 1600 or higher and still look great.

 

[Barry1908]

To limit the look of The Social Network to the use of a RED camera would be an insult to Fincher, Cronenweth and everyone else involved though.

Agree 100%, tried to simplify my argument using broad strokes. Puredrifting , I find what you say very sobering in a good way. I think I’ll just rent a C200 and a gaffer if an upcoming tvc comes through...

 

[mizzar]

While we are on this topic, why do people always say CRL is a data management nightmare, but I never hear that about RED cameras... our video dept just got a C200 and I’m planning on shooting most projects in RAW. On 512GB cards, I should get a little over an hour per card, correct?

 

[NorBro]

Probably because REDCODE offers lots of different compression ratios you can choose from (low-mid-high quality) where the C200's CRL is fixed...so you might be able to fit 5 minutes on a 128GB REDMAG or 5 hours depending on your settings (a rudimentary example).

 

[Barry1908]

Probably because REDCODE offers lots of different compression ratios you can choose from (low-mid-high quality) where the C200's CRL is fixed...so you might be able to fit 5 minutes on a 128GB REDMAG or 5 hours depending on your settings (a rudimentary example).

Also RED is generally higher budget so the pain is expected/embraced! "We're shooting RED! The files are HUUUGE" (humble brag)

 

[jcs]

As always , appreciate the expert feedback from those who have used the gear and have higher end experience than I. JCS Norbro Alkali Andrew thanks... I would ask puredrifting, if a mid level person, mostly corporate with a softbox , 3 ish point lighting, like me would shoot both side by side, would I be looking at a pretty similar end result... or am I kidding myself that I could shoot social network level with a bit of extra elbow grease...

Not only could you shoot Social Network level quality on the C200, you could exceed it! Canon's 4K sensor, color science, and low noise levels far exceed the 4.5K Red One MX sensor. You're only limited by your imagination.

Could you exceed Gone Girl? Shot in 5 & 6K, the Dragon has a resolution/detail advantage, however again it's a noisier sensor and Red uses fairly strong OLPFs (which is a good thing re: aliasing; also (now) swappable for faces/skin vs. max detail), so detail would still be fairly close. Unless your project needs a lot of slomo (where Red still dominates the industry below Phantom speeds), you could still produce similar quality with the C200 (raw), and in low light, exceed it. For tracking shots, even with a top AC, the C200 will provide better 4K-level focus. In a similar way that some folks prefer a steadicam's organic motion vs. a gimbal, there's an organic-ness to a human pulling focus (lag, overshoot/undershoot, then 'got it') that has an emotional effect when used appropriately. DPAF has rate controls to help with this, and there's tons of room to further enhance AF systems to provide human-assisted de-focus etc. to provide useful emotional cues while still provide 4K-level focus.

 

[IronFilm]

But to circle back to your question: the C200 will not stand in the way between you and filmic images.

But you could even say the same about the GH5 or a BMPCC, or countless other cameras out there and not just the C200.

 

[AndreeOnline]

…or countless other cameras out there and not just the C200.

Just above the partial quote, in the same post, I said:

Any camera with 11-12 stops of DR that can record with a logarithmic transfer curve to a robust codec can be made to look filmic.

So yes, I didn't limit my post to the C200. A good example of what I mean is LaForet's Möbius that demoed the original C300's capabilities: HD, original Canon Log, a compressed, 8-bit long GOP codec....

The world has moved on since then, obviously, but it's still my case in point. And it could have been made even more filmic by adding additional grain, but one can understand why Canon didn't want the camera to look "noisy" at launch.

 

[Joshua_G]

…
Any camera with 11-12 stops of DR that can record with a logarithmic transfer curve to a robust codec can be made to look filmic.
…

But you could even say the same about the GH5 or a BMPCC, or countless other cameras out there and not just the C200.

Both statements seem to be correct. However, there may be huge differences in IQ between different cameras 'straight out of the camera' files, with minimal post manipulation/grading.

 

[Barry1908]

Not only could you shoot Social Network level quality on the C200, you could exceed it! Canon's 4K sensor, color science, and low noise levels far exceed the 4.5K Red One MX sensor. You're only limited by your imagination.

Could you exceed Gone Girl? Shot in 5 & 6K, the Dragon has a resolution/detail advantage, however again it's a noisier sensor and Red uses fairly strong OLPFs (which is a good thing re: aliasing; also (now) swappable for faces/skin vs. max detail), so detail would still be fairly close. Unless your project needs a lot of slomo (where Red still dominates the industry below Phantom speeds), you could still produce similar quality with the C200 (raw), and in low light, exceed it. For tracking shots, even with a top AC, the C200 will provide better 4K-level focus. In a similar way that some folks prefer a steadicam's organic motion vs. a gimbal, there's an organic-ness to a human pulling focus (lag, overshoot/undershoot, then 'got it') that has an emotional effect when used appropriately. DPAF has rate controls to help with this, and there's tons of room to further enhance AF systems to provide human-assisted de-focus etc. to provide useful emotional cues while still provide 4K-level focus.

Social Network is more than enough quality if I ever achieve its quality! I guess glass is definitely a big part too which we easily forget. I was watching some Alexa vision on the weekend and i thought it was F5 (no offence !), perhaps they were on lower end zooms because it looked like they moved pretty fast ... and the production design could have been a lot more “big budget”. I was surprised but not shocked it was Arri.. appreciate the input again people!