C500: C500 Mark II: Observations from a C300MkII point of view


So this is very far from being a final edit. 2 camera angles from 10 or so that we shot. And we weren't supposed to have sun Saturday afternoon, and I'd planned a very different look (which after the sun went down, we shot). But it was pretty, and so we shot a version that was sunny, and prettier. I figured it was a good time to look at the 6k 60p capture, just to see what it looked like. I have to say it's remarkable. I don't see any difference with from 30/24p material. (the tiny bit of noise on the first angle is added in post).Don't know how you'd currently display it in its full resolution (I guess MacPro with XDR display...hmmm).

The choreography was extremely fast, and so I decided to overcrank and run it at half speed (this is the beginning of a showreel for the dancer). Handheld, Natural light (we were out in an open field with black muddy soil so virtually no fill other than skylight). Grade is quite a bit darker than the capture.

Shot at 800 ISO. CRL 5.9k 59.94. AF- Face Tracking (Face Only). I've uploaded a 6k version that is available to download, although it is H.264 and I'm not able to get it to play back smoothly on my iMac Pro. I've uploaded a second short excerpt in ProRes that plays fine. That one needs a password: nellieslo

https://vimeo.com/386007018. (excerpt with ProRes download)
 
From Andy Taylor, ASC (off the Newshooter)

Matt Allard : Who do you see using the C500 Mark II?

Andy Taylor : The C500 Mark II would be a massive step for anyone using any camera with a Super 35 sensor, especially if they already have EF or PL glass. This camera could shoot anything from feature films and documentaries for Netflix to TV News using an ENG lens with the optional B4 to EF adaptor.
Click to expand...

https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/01/19/c500-mark-ii-first-impressions-with-andy-taylor-acs/

PS. Andy is a Canon ambassador (to Holland, I think)
 
What other answer should be expected?

Same thoughts are given by everyone in a position to answer about every new camera.
 
He's right though. 5.9 Raw is good enough for the feature films and the Netflix TV series. As per Netflix itself.
 
Liam Hall said:
You might be asking the wrong question; I'd ask, can you afford to stand still while others upgrade? If yes, then you don't need to upgrade, if you feel competitors may get an edge over you than perhaps you need to upgrade or you will start to lose business.
Click to expand...

True. Fortunately in my business, most of our clients either dont care what you shoot with as long as it looks pro, or they are soooo specific that you'll rarely have the exact camera they want and require so why not just rent the Arri/RED/Sony FS7, etc?

I think it will take many years before clients even know what a C500 MKII is or ask specifically for it. I made a vow a few years ago that I wasn't going to buy any more cameras over $10k unless I have a single, specific long term project that will pay for it in one fell swoop. Those jobs are becoming more and more rare so I doubt that will happen.

At least in my business (EPK/BTS/Documentary/Instructional), most clients who specify camera, it's almost always C300 MKII/FS7 or Arri/RED. Usually I can convince the C300 MKII/FS7 clients that the C200 is same general level and the few upper end clients only want RED or Arri, but if not, we just rent what they want. Of course, we like getting rentals on our camera but if clients want something specific, make 'em happy is the key.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
From Andy Taylor, ASC (off the Newshooter)



https://www.newsshooter.com/2020/01/19/c500-mark-ii-first-impressions-with-andy-taylor-acs/

PS. Andy is a Canon ambassador (to Holland, I think)
Click to expand...

I'm skeptical of a "massive step" based upon all of the test footage put out so far. I'd say more like "a small step that your clients would likely never notice in a million years" but I reserve final judgement until I can put the C200 directly against the C500 MKII.
Like all new cameras, there is definitely a hype storm around the C500 MKII and the FX-9.
 
Reading Andy's interview, I think he's a bit too enthusiastic for his own good on this...but I'd say, coming from the C300 mark II, this camera Is a marked step forward. I've not used the C200, so I don't know how it compares there, but as a package, it's flexibility and quality at almost every juncture...its certainly a significant step forward at this price point, if not truly massive.
 
It's a significant step forward at this price point in Canon's world.

It's about 10 steps back in comparison to other tools if visual cinematic motion picture image quality on YouTube would be presented to the voting system.

On paper, again, it beats almost everything in its "class" for the $$$ if you're just comparing written words and numbers.

But if IQ is what matters - and it sounds like it does when we always talk about specs and value - and you have 6K Pockets for ~$1500 on eBay providing the images that they do then there's no comparison.

Even the RED Raven from 5 years ago - with a shooting package obtainable for less than $12K when it was first released (and less now) - makes anything from Canon look mediocre.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mh8_L4I5o0

No offense - truly, I mean it - but that video above looks like it could have been shot on an iPhone. Maybe an exaggeration, but not by much. Awesome dancing and location and filming, but the perceived image quality - which is 99% one of the main reasons why many of us purchase cameras - matters most, and the Canon's are just never worth their price, IMO.

So it's about perspective...if you're coming from $80K Betacams, it's a bargain. If you've been around the block long enough working with certain tools, it's tremendously overpriced.
 
No point in comparing the C500.2 to cameras without some form of PD AF. The Red (soon Apple?) Komodo is looking interesting with PD AF + has an RF mount.

Another point is people who buy Red (or BM) tend to be going for dramatic and creative looks (emotion) whereas most(?) Canon C users are just trying to get good shots for corporate, doc, verite, interviews, etc. I did a lot of green screen with the C300.2, though most of the time just focused on getting nice color and skintones (vs anything emotional based on camera work). Have been doing creative work on DSLR and mirrorless cameras: small and light, nimble: just feels more creative and fun to work with, especially one-handed gimbal shots.
 
jcs said:
No point in comparing the C500.2 to cameras without some form of PD AF. The Red (soon Apple?) Komodo is looking interesting with PD AF + has an RF mount.

Another point is people who buy Red (or BM) tend to be going for dramatic and creative looks (emotion) whereas most(?) Canon C users are just trying to get good shots for corporate, doc, verite, interviews, etc. I did a lot of green screen with the C300.2, though most of the time just focused on getting nice color and skintones (vs anything emotional based on camera work). Have been doing creative work on DSLR and mirrorless cameras: small and light, nimble: just feels more creative and fun to work with, especially one-handed gimbal shots.
Click to expand...

That's true, but is AF worth an extra $6K-$8K-$10K? Maybe for some it is plus ND filters, the new IS, etc.

Barry G said:
Either you've never taken a good look at your iPhone footage, or you just mean it's not lit like a perfume ad. Not sure. But whatever.
Click to expand...

Just please do know I'm not trying to offend you...my feelings are strictly towards Canon's camera and what they've made and the price they are selling it for.
 
I said the same thing when the C300.2 came out (and paid $16K), same applies to the C500.2: there’s nothing else on the market that offers those features at a lower price. If one doesn’t need, XLR, NDs, raw or PD AF, sure tons of options. Sure an old Alexa will provide more accurate color and much better DR, however they are giant heavy power hungry cameras. If ZCam starts using PD AF sensors, that’ll be a very interesting development. The C500.2 fills a niche, as does it’s camera cabal cousin, the FX9.

iPhones still have a long way to go in image quality. Though on YT, IG most people won’t notice a difference vs. even an Alexa 65 + top lenses lol.
 
NorBro said:
That's true, but is AF worth an extra $6K-$8K-$10K? Maybe for some it is plus ND filters, the new IS, etc.

Just please do know I'm not trying to offend you...my feelings are strictly towards Canon's camera and what they've made and the price they are selling it for.
Click to expand...

Not offended. Just trying to keep it real. Your statement wasn't accurate, so I said so. Thats all. Just so you know...in any market, there are people who think a certain product is overpriced, and there are others who think they are a bargain. In this case, I'm the latter.

FWIW, my iPhone-quality vid above, shot pointed into the sun, with zero fill, is just another one of my tests at seeing where and if the image will break. In this case, it largely didn't (I was protecting the shadows perhaps a bit too much in my exposure, and could have been a stop darker and still done fine). The only things clipped in the RAW are the sun and one overlapping backlit thin cloud. (in the grade I posted, I let a few more of the clouds go, as I was trying to pack a lot of DR into rec709 without any masking or turning everything into mush). There is literally no noise in the deepest shadows, the image was so clean I felt it needed some noise.) As for aesthetic, I'm a big fan of some of the cinematographers working with natural light (Yves Bélanger: “'Big Little Lies', Sharp Objects, Emmanual Lubezky:Revenant, etc. many on AlexaXT, 65 or LF.) I'm looking to see how far this camera can take me into that realm. This first test was very promising, at least from my perspective, although from yours, it's probably not.
 
Last edited:
Here's another look at the above from a color perspective --our intention with this piece is to finish in BW but here's a look at this shot 3 ways: First, a warm grade that I might use if I were finishing it in color.. B)The original capture with Canon's LUT and a one stop exposure offset and remapped white and black points, and then for fun, the clip at full speed to show how fast nellie is actually moving, which is kind of astonishing. As far as the grade goes, this type of clip is challenging as the dynamic range is so great you simply have to compromise, or engage in some tricky masking, which I didn't do. I think the primary grade is about 90% of what I want it to be, so pretty good.

This video is a standard "Vimeo" export, so from a detail standpoint is has much lower quality, but still a decent 4k.

Edit: I replace this clip with a new "western" grade that's less red and more natural. Also uploaded at a higher quality.
 
Last edited:
https://vimeo.com/378606757

I stumbled on this this regrade when Barry G uploaded the first test of his own. Kids faces and their attire at 36sec mark look fabulous. Some may prefer the Alexa look anyway but we're quickly getting into the "I like cheese" type of a debate.
 
DLD said:
https://vimeo.com/378606757

I stumbled on this this regrade when Barry G uploaded the first test of his own. Kids faces and their attire at 36sec mark look fabulous. Some may prefer the Alexa look anyway but we're quickly getting into the "I like cheese" type of a debate.
Click to expand...

If an Alexa was used in the same conditions, both cameras could be matched close enough. IMO the Alexa's look is it's simply accurate, and doesn't do ugly things to skin tones as exposure changes up or down (shadows & highlights for every shot). In good conditions, Alexa, Canon, Sony, Red, BM can all look very good and be matched well in post: tons of videos online doing just that, especially in the studio. The Alexas earn their price premium handling mixed lighting and under/overexposure recovery, all while being the most accurate color science currently available. Alexa noise grain/structure is also shaped to be film like (remember they started out making digital film scanners) + low RS, great slomo options which maintain quality, etc.

To make the C500 II example above look more cinematic: add diffusion in post + nice subtle noise grain. When shooting, can of course use any of the classic diffusion + halation/bloom optical filters.
 
jcs said:
To make the C500 II example above look more cinematic: add diffusion in post + nice subtle noise grain. When shooting, can of course use any of the classic diffusion + halation/bloom optical filters.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice. I have a couple of Black Pro Mists for just such a purpose. Although I'd probably argue with any notion that it makes an image more "cinematic" (I'm not sure there is any definition of that term. I saw a lot of movies this year, all of them looked cinematic. None of them looked the same. Several probably didn't use any diffusion.) As the cinematographer, given this shot didn't have a keylight, and the foreground being extremely "low contrast" I probably wouldn't use any diffusion, as while they all have different characteristics, I don't know of one that increases shadow contrast. As it was, the second angle is mostly veiling flare, so I don't think it really needs any more of that.

I also think, and this is supposition, but the tendency to put diffusion on HD cameras has largely been to help soften the aliasing that most cameras of that resolution live with. At 6k, downsampled to 4k, I don't think aliasing is really an issue, and so adding diffusion becomes more of a creative choice rather than a corrective one.

I saw Roma projected in 4k, and it was damn sharp. I also thought it looked cinematic. Per Cuaron (from American Cinematographer):

Cuarón eschewed lens filters other than NDs. “For interiors and big spaces, I decided not to use any smoke or equivalents,” he adds. “That creates a beautiful diffusion for the background, but I refused to use it
unless it was absolutely justified, as I wanted a very sharp and grainless look.”
 
When an image is super clean and detailed, especially when 'overlit' (when lighting is not strongly controlled), that tends to get people thinking "video". Another big one is how color changes as it approaches clipping as well as what max whites look like. In film (and Alev.3 cameras), color tends to not keep saturating as luminance increases. Folks have tried doing lum/sat curves in e.g. Resolve with e.g. the F55 to get closer to what the Alev.3 cameras are doing by default. A similar effect happens with whites: it's really hard to get superwhites, in relative dynamic range of the entire scene, with both real film and Alev.3 cameras. Thus with something like the C500.2, you really want to make sure you don't clip white, especially anywhere on skin, so you can bring it down in post to look more like film. The other challenge though, as that even if you don't clip white, non-Alev.3 cameras have a harder time recovering accurate/correct color for overexposed areas (as well as shadows). So with practice you can figure out what the safe over exposure is with e.g. skin so you can safely recover good color in post. The tradeoff is noise in the shadows (though for the non-defective(?) C500.2's that shouldn't be an issue).

The comment about diffusion is really more about unreality and related to Uncanny Valley in a sense. Film/narrative is about storytelling and suspension of disbelief. 24p certainly helps (vs. high FR), controlling the lighting and color grading which directs emotion, and diffusion/bloom really can help push the viewer out of uncanny valley (toward the unreal side), as it creates a visual reality that's outside typical real-time viewing experiences (foggy glasses / drugs / alcohol don't count).

In the regrade example posted earlier, I noticed the highlights immediately, and the clarity without light control also was pushing perception towards video / doc / corporate, some commercials, comedy TV, etc. vs. narrative/drama (emotion + storytelling). When lighting is super orange (low K, tungsten etc.), I tend to adjust WB to get more blue, and sometimes even adjust blue gamma in curves. When people look like the Simpsons, and everything else in the scene is super yellow/orange it tends to 2D-ify/flatten would could be a better 3D looking image.

Here's the ARRI LF looking like video IMO, with blown highlights (probably fixable in post if they wanted), generally 'bad' lighting and grading if one is going for a film like look:

So even with the "best" camera, it's still possible to make it look like video / not filmic.

If we pay attention to the highlights, we see that they are generally never super white, and from eyeballing in many cases peak whites are slightly magenta/blue. This short might look a bit like video at the beginning because it's so well lit, sharp & detailed. Later the super shallow DOF and pleasing highlights makes for an interesting viewing experience, along with really well done makeup/skintones for multiple skin types:

Can you see why the Alexa LF is so popular at the high end WRT highlights, shadows, color and skin tone color accuracy? (the hardest thing to get right with a digital camera, especially exposure invariant color in skin):

An interesting thing, is if you shot the C500.2 next to the Alexa LF, you could grade to make the C500.2 look really close and easily cut between the two cameras (provided the C500.2 is within its dynamic range for skintones). I used to shoot 5D3 raw stills to help grade A7S I/II footage (until I learned the pattern and didn't need the references anymore). Without accurate references, it's a bit harder to make the less accurate cameras match the more accurate cameras. Another reason why studio comparison tests aren't that useful, or tests where better cameras provide the base (accurate/correct) look, and all the lesser cameras are 'graded up' to match as best as possible.

In any case, if one studies well-graded Alev.3/film footage, you can shoot and grade the C500.2 (and any camera, really) to look more like those higher end cameras (typically (but not always!) operated and graded by folks with a lot of experience: the camera is only a small part of the final look).
 
After doing various hand-held tests my initial conclusion is that I would pretty much never use the new in-body image stabilization unless I was trying to be a human tripod for a specific shot and in that case I would only use it in combination with lens image stabilization. For the most part the in-body stabilization looks like you put Warp Stabilization on it in post - image is a tiny bit softer (but noticeable), but there seems to be more motion blur/frame blending going on between key frames which helps with the illusion of smoother footage, but the footage definitely feels more blurry.

Would be curious to hear other's perspectives on the new in-body stabilization.

Currently I'm pretty disappointed because I thought the new stabilization especially when paired with a Canon lens with IS would be a go-to tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top