C500 MKII Leaked on Canon Rumors

[cyvideo]

The only solution I've read about ( but I've never tried yet ) is to raise your shooting color temperature to 10,000 Kelvin or higher, and then pull it all back to normal in post.

Yes that is one way to do but it gives a fairly unnatural look if you have to hand the footage off, looks like no blue light was used at all. I'm finding, especially if you can get a rehearsal of the full lighting rundown, is to get the lighting at it worst blue/purple and then manually adjust your white balance. If your camera has the ability to scroll it's WB I'm finding that usually if you dial in somewhere between 4500-5600 K then you will still maintain blue in the image but avoid that nasty blue clip. If you go way up like towards 9900 K the blue has all but gone and if you want some back it's nowhere as easy to get a decent looking blue in the areas where the blue light is supposed to be. You end up with too much blue distributed across the whole image with a WB towards blue. If I can't get a rehearsal but I know they have a heavy blue bias and are using LEDs I just set all cameras to preset 5600. The image at 5600 is often totally acceptable for hand off but if you are going to post it your correction job is way easier.

Gripe #2 is the horrid lemon yellow you run into now in some locations with table lamps, reading lamp, stand lamps etc. Using those again nasty compact florescent lamps, I now carry a box of true color 3200 and 5600 K LED globes to replace the on location practicals. But that's another story!

Chris Young

 

[TheDingo]

If your camera has the ability to scroll it's WB I'm finding that usually if you dial in somewhere between 4500-5600 K then you will still maintain blue in the image but avoid that nasty blue clip.

So a standard 5600 K daylight balance is able to stop the blue from clipping ? ( this sounds like a dirt simple solution )

 

[Mitch Gross]

I think it's more the inability of many modern sensors being able to handle massively over driven cheap blue/purple LEDs being used in many stage and film productions now. Very poorly chosen when they need to be used in film production of any kind. These cheap out of gamut types of LEDs produce the most hideous over drive to the point of clipping in the blue channel. Here is a pair of stills from a Panasonic LT frame brought into Resolve 16 using DaVinci ACES color management with VF35 in and 709 out. The image is totally destroyed by the floor to ceiling spike through blue. I can't use the ACES workflow on these types of LED lit scenes. Just look at the accompanying Hue v Hue grab. The second set is bringing the same image in but using the default DaVinci YRGB color management. Much better but again the absolute overdrive in the blue channel is virtually beyond recovery. It's not only Panasonic that has this problem but many other brands exhibit the same symptoms. I've chosen this clip because it is freely available if anyone wants to see if they have a decent grading answer to this problem. They can actually test their workflow out by downloading this particular bit of LT ProRes which was kindly put up by Emmanuel Pampuri on Vimeo a couple of years back. If you do have a decent solution please post back because I run into this sort of problem quite often. I've found the best result is to use a 709 LUT and then work from there but the end result is never anything I'm super happy about when I run into these types of lighting situations. The original ProRes clip is available at:

https://vimeo.com/155708488

Chris Young

View attachment 136664View attachment 136665

View attachment 136666View attachment 136667

You’re correct that pretty much every camera has to fight this. The only ones that don’t have much problem are the ones who have trouble rendering blues anyway, so it’s like they don’t see the overdriven frequencies.

We sold a bunch of our VariCam CineLive systems to a mega church that was using this sort of blue LED lighting, and in the end we worked hand in hand with them the paint out this issue. You could do it in post but this was for a live application and everything had to be done by painting the live matrix controls in a scene file. Worked well in the end, but I do hate these lights.

In that same church and others, we had a “shoot out” with all the major manufacturers and they chose VariCam because we were the only ones who could handle this issue. And other reasons, but this was a big factor.

 

[cyvideo]

So a standard 5600 K daylight balance is able to stop the blue from clipping ? ( this sounds like a dirt simple solution )

In most cases yes. Why I suggested 4500-5600 is given time I'll get an assistant on stage with a big white flekky and ask the lighting guys to give me their white light only and then balance or dial in the K off that. A lot of those stage white LEDs seem to land around 4500-4700K. The higher you go then the less blue drive there is because the camera winds down the blue and pushes up the reds and greens, reds primarily. That's why I don't use anything much above 5600K as the skin tones get much too warm along with the rest of the image. Too much red bias now forces you to pull down hard on the white balance in post. Would rather avoid that when possible. What started to make me think along these lines a number of years ago was this first clip. The second clip is a much better example of what is going on. It works for sure.

Chris Young

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6XXHieOfXo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HqZ59zfxo4

 

[cyvideo]

... and in the end we worked hand in hand with them the paint out this issue. You could do it in post but this was for a live application and everything had to be done by painting the live matrix controls in a scene file. Worked well in the end, but I do hate these lights.

Yes fully understand and agree. Working with CCUs or even RCUs can greatly minimize the problem and that really is the only solution in my opinion for live. I've tried developing scene files to minimize the blue problem but what I find then is I can get caught out when all of a sudden at the end of a show they kill all the color and go to white light and if anyone or any part of the set is blue it looks washed out. If they go to white and if their stage white was measured at say 4700K and you run at 4700K then everything including natural blue clothing or blue parts of the set look pretty much as you would expect. It's only the insane out of gamut blue/purple LEDs that really needs taming down not natural reflective blues.

Chris Young

 

[Guest]

I'd agree with that sentiment; watching the trailer it looks hard to believe they spent 12 million dollars on that unless they were just really bad with money. I would have guessed in the $200k-$500k range based on the trailer. I guess they did have a decent size cast looking at IMDB. But even at $500k or $100k, back around 2014 when that movie was filmed, there were plenty of better cameras that would have worked better for the production. Even a C300 Mark I would have looked considerably better and cost insignificantly more.

My best guess is the DP was friends with the producers, the DP owned the 5D, was still using it after the DSLR revolution, still in love with full frame and the super shallow look, and perhaps wanted to get some rental money from his camera, so that's what ended up being used.


I worked on a web series that had about a $20k budget, but later read a news article that it had had a $250k budget which I know was not accurate. The film commission gave grants based off of a percentage of a project's budget, so a percentage of $20k is a lot less than a percentage of $250k. Part of the reasoning for the higher number was that (pretty much) none of the cast, crew, studio space, etc., were getting paid so most of the money was going to food, props, etc., so if they had all been paid, perhaps the budget would have actually been $250k. Someone said that is still fraud. I don't know, but as mentioned above, apparently it's common to exaggerate budget.

In another case, some friends of mine worked on a short film and the producer ended up spending $50k of his own money on the short, but, the short did not look good. It looked more like a $5k-$10k short film. Meanwhile, the producer who'd spent the money was bragging about how he'd done this $50k short film, while another person who worked on it thought the end product was poor, and was like, "Dude, don't go telling people the budget because it's embarrassing to admit you spent $50k on a movie that looks like it cost $5k-$10k."

Trailer for that 20+ minute $50k short...

I’ll shoot their next one.

 

[cpreston]

The C300 II turns blue LED to magenta. It is worse than any other camera I've seen. You can play around in the color matrix to subtract some of the red from the blue channel and add blue to the red channel and then push the tint towards blue. It doesn't take much, but It will never quite match what the human eye is seeing. I don't blame the camera companies because they are trying to compensate for colors that don't really correspond to any actual wavelength of light. It's just an interpolation of how the shift from UV to IR occurs. I blame the event A/V companies that have decided a blue LED background wash with tungsten key lights will look good.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Yes fully understand and agree. Working with CCUs or even RCUs can greatly minimize the problem and that really is the only solution in my opinion for live. I've tried developing scene files to minimize the blue problem but what I find then is I can get caught out when all of a sudden at the end of a show they kill all the color and go to white light and if anyone or any part of the set is blue it looks washed out. If they go to white and if their stage white was measured at say 4700K and you run at 4700K then everything including natural blue clothing or blue parts of the set look pretty much as you would expect. It's only the insane out of gamut blue/purple LEDs that really needs taming down not natural reflective blues.

Chris Young

For those unfamiliar, A CCU/RCU/RCP (Camera Control Unit / Remote Control Unit / Remote Control Panel) is an interface to control the functions on a camera. The painting of color, with gains, bias, matrix, etc., all actually happens in the camera but instead of digging through menus the separate unit has all of the controls laid out on a panel so that they can be tweaked live. True studio cameras don't have the controls built in as it's meant to be fully controlled separately, so these circuits live in the CCU box itself, which sits on a rack back in the control room (basically the back half od the camera there). For the VariCam LT (and most Panasonic cameras) the RCP of choice is the HRP1000. The EVA1 could not initially be controlled in this way, however we have worked with two 3rd party companies, Skaarhoj and CyanView, to enable their RCPs to interface with the EVA1 via the camera's USB port. That makes the EVA1 one of the most versatile and affordable paintable camera systems on the market.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

You should definitely check it out! It's disgusting in all the right ways....

While I would agree that Stranger Things isn't quite as beautiful as GoT (I don't remember S1 of True Detective, and have never seen Big Little Lies), I do think it's one of the nicest looking shows around and definitely top tier (I'm watching in 4K/HDR on an OLED). I kinda think GoT is just a prettier subject (sweeping Irish coastlines and desert/icy landscapes) than ST is, and I'm sure has a much higher budget. Now that you clarified your stance (sorry if I missed a joke), I think mostly agree with you. The only place we may disagree is I think FF is here to stay and will become a new standard, if for no other reason than camera manufacturers will want you to buy a 6k/FF camera to replace your perfectly good 4k/S35 camera.

Agreed that any FF camera should be able to shoot S35 with no quality hit. The 1DC and I'm assuming 1DX-II does this, and I believe Sony's A7 series does it too (been a while since I've owned one).

So I just binge watched The Boys today and yesterday, and I'm not impressed by the look of the Red on the show. That said, the show was awesome!

 

[Fahnon]

So I just binge watched The Boys today and yesterday, and I'm not impressed by the look of the Red on the show. That said, the show was awesome!

Oh I agree with you. I was surprised to find that Stranger Things S3 and The Boys were the same camera because I'm a huge fan of the way the former looks, and not necessarily the latter. The grade always felt too blue and artificially contrasty/low DR (pushed too far for both), particularly the way they handled highlights. But the show got me to binge read 72 issues of the source material, so there's that.

Kinda puts into perspective how important (or not) the look of a show really is in comparison to the story and acting...

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Kinda puts into perspective how important (or not) the look of a show really is in comparison to the story and acting...

Well yeah, we've always known that story and acting are typically more important. I'd imagine cinematographer contributes something like 5-10% of a narrative movie or show's overall quality, and that 5-10% is our job as technicians, and still an important job. I'm sure I would have enjoyed The Boys more if it had been better shot, but it is what it is, and still did great on the other 90-95%, and the cinematography isn't terrible.

That's one reason that in addition to DPing I like to produce movies as well here and there, as as a producer I then have a much larger contribution to the overall quality of the movie, as opposed to if I'm just DPing a movie, then I'm moreso relying on others as far as how the quality of the end product ends up.

 

[Tamerlin]

Well yeah, we've always known that story and acting are typically more important. I'd imagine cinematographer contributes something like 5-10% of a narrative movie or show's overall quality, and that 5-10% is our job as technicians, and still an important job. I'm sure I would have enjoyed The Boys more if it had been better shot, but it is what it is, and still did great on the other 90-95%, and the cinematography isn't terrible.

A good DP contributes a lot to the look of the film. Between the cinematography and art direction, that pretty much amounts to most of the look.

That's one reason that in addition to DPing I like to produce movies as well here and there, as as a producer I then have a much larger contribution to the overall quality of the movie, as opposed to if I'm just DPing a movie, then I'm moreso relying on others as far as how the quality of the end product ends up.

For the apparent production value, the DP and art contribute most of the quality level. Nothing can make up for lousy acting or a mediocre script, but part of the point in cinematography is to complement and enhance the actors' performances.

 

[Fahnon]

A good DP contributes a lot to the look of the film. Between the cinematography and art direction, that pretty much amounts to most of the look.



For the apparent production value, the DP and art contribute most of the quality level. Nothing can make up for lousy acting or a mediocre script, but part of the point in cinematography is to complement and enhance the actors' performances.

I can’t speak for Eric, but my point that he was responding to was that the way a show looks, or more precisely how good it looks, is a typically fairly small part of how good the show itself is. I think the direction and cinematography of the new HBO show Euphoria is incredible. And I’m not being hyperbolic here; I think it's some of the best work I’ve ever seen. Hell I even think the acting is great, but I couldn’t connect with any of the characters so I stopped watching. Or maybe worse than stopping watching; I didn’t care enough to finish the season. But The Boys, a show that doesn’t look nearly as good to me, has me eagerly anticipating S2.

(Luckily for the folks that make Euphoria, I’m apparently in the minority and I’m glad it was picked up for S2 even if the show isn't for me.)

So obviously doing what I do for a living, and trying to eke out as much visual quality as I'm able to get, I think the DP has a very important role and would not suggest otherwise. And
occasionally there are shows like Penny Dreadful that NEED to look and sound the way they do (one of my favorites). I just don’t think, in general, how good a show looks decides how good a show it is for the audience.

I guess I'd liken the look of a show to the sound design and music: Hugely influential to the impression you have, but will not make or break things for the audience except in extreme cases.

 

[Fahnon]

Also want to add that the old cliché that the difference between good and great is small is true and I think that's where the cinematography lives. Great cinematography won't make your show good, but it can elevate your good show to great (same with music).

 

[Guest]

Also want to add that the old cliché that the difference between good and great is small is true and I think that's where the cinematography lives. Great cinematography won't make your show good, but it can elevate your good show to great (same with music).

Well said!

 

[Mitch Gross]

I would note that much of what I believe is being criticized in the cinematography of The Boys is actually the grade. I didn’t particularly like the choices made in color timing, but that may have been completely out of the hands of the cinematographer.

 

[Teddy_Dem]

I would note that much of what I believe is being criticized in the cinematography of The Boys is actually the grade. I didn’t particularly like the choices made in color timing, but that may have been completely out of the hands of the cinematographer.

I agree that whether one likes or dislikes the look of The Boys is mainly about whether that sort of grade appeals to a person and is less about the camera used. It's definitely an extreme grade, so I can see why it would be polarizing. Company 3 has a post discussing the look:

https://www.company3.com/lets-hear-it-for-the-boys/

"“It’s strongly graphic look,” says Ferstl. “Things exists in a rich and contrasty world except for shots when we’re seeing through the many video cameras and then the look more realistic and straightforward. But otherwise it’s more graphic. The superhero uniforms pop. Not so much that they separate from the scene but enough to draw the audience’s attention. There are a number of silhouettes and backlit characters. It’s not pushed too much but there’s a lot of darkness in the imagery. In HDR” – Ferstl did a pass for HDR10 delivery — “will bring out the subtle richness of those dark scenes even more.”"

 

[DLD]

So, the expected Sony FX-9 (probably announced on the 13th) is supposed to be priced at ~ $10K. That would leave C500 MKII a $20,000 slot, which has been the bandied about price point. Sony's going to be a FS-7 replacement, Canon is going for a far more affordable C700FF.

Kind of makes sense for both parties involved.

 

[Newsguy]

My (not so) bold prediction. If the C500 II prices at 20k it’s dead on arrival. It doesn’t have any kind of name recognition other than the camera no one bought years ago. I’ve read a couple of articles talking about how that price range is a dying breed. It’s either the high end or the upper lower end, but anything in between gets lost in the shuffle due to being too much for owner ops, and if renting, people opt for the upper tiers.

 

[Fahnon]

My (not so) bold prediction. If the C500 II prices at 20k it’s dead on arrival. It doesn’t have any kind of name recognition other than the camera no one bought years ago. I’ve read a couple of articles talking about how that price range is a dying breed. It’s either the high end or the upper lower end, but anything in between gets lost in the shuffle due to being too much for owner ops, and if renting, people opt for the upper tiers.

Mitch said as much in one of the articles you may be referring to; it's why Panasonic has (temporarily) lowered the price of the LT.

$10k is my personal limit for buying a camera, and I'll rent if I need more firepower and a client wants to pay for it. I think that's a pretty typical way of thinking these days now that we're shooting 4k/60 in raw or a high bitrate codec for ~$6000 (C200/UMP/EVA1/FS7 etc). I'd have to have clients demanding the use of a specific camera, or be an owner/op that thinks it will help me make more money in order to buy a camera for $20k, because frankly with certified/warrantee'd used RED and Arri cameras at $10k, and cameras like the LT brand new at $10k, I'm not sure why I personally would spend more than that.

And someone who does want or need a $20k camera likely isn't going for a C500-II.

heh, I guess this was my longwinded way of saying I agree.