C500 MKII Leaked on Canon Rumors

BRAW is a fantastic codec to shoot to. It's completely irrelevant if it's "true raw" or not. It's about giving the shooter options to control data rate while maintaining performance and image fidelity.

Canon Raw Light is good too. They should just open it up and offer more data rates to suit different scenarios.
 
"Raw sounds great on paper, but if you look up the definition of raw I’m pretty sure it just reads: Bigger files and more complicated workflow so you can make the exact same decisions later instead of now."

James0b57 said:
This should be a sticky. (Are we still doing stickies?)

Come to our restaurant, where you pick up the raw ingredients and take them home to figure out what you want to ear later!
Click to expand...

I mostly agree with Chris on this too.... except to say I haven't shot ProRes Raw yet...and if/when it gets more readily adapted and file sizes are indeed equal to the non Raw and workflow is easy... I can easily imagine shooting lots more raw
 
AndreeOnline said:
BRAW is a fantastic codec to shoot to. It's completely irrelevant if it's "true raw" or not. It's about giving the shooter options to control data rate while maintaining performance and image fidelity.

Canon Raw Light is good too. They should just open it up and offer more data rates to suit different scenarios.
Click to expand...

I haven't tried Canon's, but braw is indeed quite nice to work with. The obsession over whether or not it's "true raw" is mostly from people who don't make films using it as just another excuse to complain instead of making films.

BMD just made 6K insanely affordable, but it's hardly mainstream; I'd guess that close 3/4 of the people buying Pocket 4 and 6K cameras are youtubers rather than filmmakers, though there's certainly some overlap there. No one USING a Pocket 6K for a film in the near future is going to be mastering that film in 6K... where would they show it?

I do find it hard to believe that the C500 MKII will gain all that much traction if it's priced at just under $20K though. It doesn't appear to offer enough to justify the premium over its own less expensive siblings...
 
NorBro said:
RAW is only a problem if you don't have the knowledge or equipment for it.

Because it's pretty natural in Resolve or FCPX (REDCODE) and can be just like editing ProRes.

Per usual having more $$$ will help you.
Click to expand...

Raw isn’t an acronym.

So, let me get this straight, raw is simple if you are watching the files in a program that is specialized to work with those particular flavor of raw files? I can upload raw straight to youtube or vimeo? I can hand off a file to a friend or client and they can just open the file and play it?



After years of dealing with raw in dslr’s, i can say there are plenty of situations where i just didn’t want to deal with it. And then there are times when i am glad to have it. But the sooner we get away from the bayer sensor, the better.

If you want to work with weird algorithms, you can still do that with other types of sensors. But why anyone would want to juggle the luminance and chroma mixture in raw, is beyond me. Would rather work with real resolution and color pixels.
 
James0b57 said:
So, let me get this straight, raw is simple if you are watching the files in a program that is specialized to work with those particular flavor of raw files? I can upload raw straight to youtube or vimeo? I can hand off a file to a friend or client and they can just open the file and play it?
Click to expand...

Do you actually believe that, say, Resolve is specialized for a single flavor of raw?

If you want to work with weird algorithms, you can still do that with other types of sensors. But why anyone would want to juggle the luminance and chroma mixture in raw, is beyond me. Would rather work with real resolution and color pixels.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you haven't tried it, since the difference is only in how much you can manipulate the data vs footage recorded in something like ProRes.
 
Tamerlin said:
Do you actually believe that, say, Resolve is specialized for a single flavor of raw?



Sounds like you haven't tried it, since the difference is only in how much you can manipulate the data vs footage recorded in something like ProRes.
Click to expand...

Yes, i believe Davinci resolve can only handle one flavor of raw.
 
NorBro said:
RAW is only a problem if you don't have the knowledge or equipment for it.

Because it's pretty natural in Resolve or FCPX (REDCODE) and can be just like editing ProRes.

Per usual having more $$$ will help you.
Click to expand...

I pretty much only shoot RAW on my C200, other than the occasional super long/ton of footage project and it's great in FCP X, workflow-wise, it's just another format and I can keep it RAW and edit or optimize it into Prores or just bring it in as Prores Proxy and worry about it all later.
When we go back to conform our Docu Series, we can go back to RAW and let our colorist go nuts with 12 bit RAW, it'll be glorious. I wish I was better at grading and coloring but even with my totally rudimentary skills, I can see that there is a tremendous amount of latitude and real detail in the RAW image, love it.
Funny enough, I don't think I have ever changed the WB after shooting. Yet. I'm sure I will eventually screw up and shoot Tungsten in daylight or vice-versa but so far...

For stills, the only JPEGs I shoot are on my phone, I switched to shooting RAW stills a decade ago. If I shot weddings or some other quick turnaround thing where I needed to shoot thousands of images, I might shoot JPEGs. But I did shoot stills of a fashion brand launch party a few months ago
and I shot about 800 RAW images and had all of the selects edited and shipped to the client the next day. I think a lot of people who freak out about RAW don't or haven't ever actually tried it, it's no big deal in stills or video, just takes up more space. Drives are cheap.
 
Last edited:
For the likely price point of the C500MKII (and I'll throw the C200 in there just for good measure) I would guess that the people that would buy/use those cameras aren't interested in taking advantage of getting the last few drops of quality out of their footage that raw can offer for the extra workflow hoops required. I think in the past 2 years I've worked on one project that went to a proper colorist for finishing and even they requested a Prores4444 quicktime file instead of the raw timeline.

When I had my C500 I recorded to Prores using the Odyssey 7q and my current workflow for my C200 footage is I shoot 90% of everything in Raw and then on ingest I convert to a flavor of ProRes and bake in the WideDR LUT. I imagine I would do the same for the C500MKII. If I had the desire to dive deep into color grading and/or had budget on most projects to hire a colorist I'd probably be more open to raw - but if that was the case I probably wouldn't be shooting on a midlevel Canon camera.....

Raw gets a lot of love from the Red world, but I feel like everyone I know that shoots on Arri doesn't use Raw, they choose to shoot straight to Prores.
 
Last edited:
chris f said:
For the likely price point of the C500MKII (and I'll throw the C200 in there just for good measure) I would guess that the people that would buy/use those cameras aren't interested in taking advantage of getting the last few drops of quality out of their footage that raw can offer for the extra workflow hoops required. I think in the past 2 years I've worked on one project that went to a proper colorist for finishing and even they requested a Prores4444 quicktime file instead of the raw timeline.

When I had my C500 I recorded to Prores using the Odyssey 7q and my current workflow for my C200 footage is I shoot 90% of everything in Raw and then on ingest I convert to a flavor of ProRes and bake in the WideDR LUT. I imagine I would do the same for the C500MKII. If I had the desire to dive deep into color grading and/or had budget on most projects to hire a colorist I'd probably be more open to raw - but if that was the case I probably wouldn't be shooting on a midlevel Canon camera.....

Raw gets a lot of love from the Red world, but I feel like everyone I know that shoots on Arri doesn't use Raw, they choose to shoot straight to Prores.
Click to expand...

For me, RAW is such a qualty bump from the C200 XF-AVC, the extra hassle is worth it. But I only have two clients who now request RAW, the others seem happy with 1080 Prores or accept UHD XF-AVC. I'm glad I have a camera and Ninja Blade that let me shoot in three different formats and quality levels. For me, what I predicted when I bought the camera is kind of coming true,
dealing with at least compressed RAW is becoming quicker, easier and cheaper. It took a while but look at CFast card prices now. And CFast is a soon to be dead format, CFExpress is the replacement, so the CFast cards may get even cheaper. Drives keep going down in cost, I bought a lightly used 16TB Thunderbolt 2 RAID for $400.00 that is plenty fast for working with the
RAW. Now that we have $1,200.00 cameras that shoot RAW, I don't see it going away or being used less. Prores is a great format but so is RAW, I like working with both, just depends on budget, time, needs.
 
James0b57 said:
Raw isn’t an acronym.

So, let me get this straight, raw is simple if you are watching the files in a program that is specialized to work with those particular flavor of raw files? I can upload raw straight to youtube or vimeo? I can hand off a file to a friend or client and they can just open the file and play it?



After years of dealing with raw in dslr’s, i can say there are plenty of situations where i just didn’t want to deal with it. And then there are times when i am glad to have it. But the sooner we get away from the bayer sensor, the better.

If you want to work with weird algorithms, you can still do that with other types of sensors. But why anyone would want to juggle the luminance and chroma mixture in raw, is beyond me. Would rather work with real resolution and color pixels.
Click to expand...

Tamerlin said:
Sounds like you haven't tried it, since the difference is only in how much you can manipulate the data vs footage recorded in something like ProRes.
Click to expand...

Yup.
 
James0b57 said:
Raw isn’t an acronym.
Click to expand...

I had this conversation a few years back and replied with 20 screenshots of every marketing department capitalizing it.

It's about the presentation and it looks better. It's best for business.

(But I know you just like to initiate conversations and challenge for no good reason.)
 
NorBro said:
I had this conversation a few years back and replied with 20 screenshots of every marketing department capitalizing it.
Click to expand...

Though it's not an acronym, I've given up on trying to get people to understand that capitalizing it isn't necessary.

Of course, even now there are still quite a few people who have no idea what raw is, clearly believing it to be some mythical format, and even people who believe that uncompressed = raw... in fact I ran into someone at a camera store telling customers that log recording was "like raw for video" not long ago...

A lot of people don't (and won't) ever understand what raw is.
 
Tamerlin said:
Though it's not an acronym, I've given up on trying to get people to understand that capitalizing it isn't necessary.

Of course, even now there are still quite a few people who have no idea what raw is, clearly believing it to be some mythical format, and even people who believe that uncompressed = raw... in fact I ran into someone at a camera store telling customers that log recording was "like raw for video" not long ago...

A lot of people don't (and won't) ever understand what raw is.
Click to expand...

RAW in caps is totally a branding/marketing hype thing. I've written for several clients and or subjects and you don't get to write, "Avid or Red, it always has to AVID or RED" and I can think of several others that are the same. For me, who cares, if the accepted in our industry is RAW, I write RAW.
 
Personally, I don't like raw. I prefer it medium rare.

Unless it's sushi. Then I want it deep fried.
 
To share an e-mail with a client of mine on the subject...

"Dear Beloved Client,

I am writing you to discuss your yearning desire for me to shoot your future masterpiece in r.a.w. As it is a feature film that is a comedy with a three camera setup, I just wanted to advise against shooting in r.a.w. because COMPRESSED will give us much longer record times, with COMPRESSED the media will be cheaper, COMPRESSED will be easier to backup, and the COMPRESSED COMPRESSION will still yield the quality that you seek for your first movie and will not hurt the film as far as awards are concerned. Given your $12,000 budget based on your credit card limit for this 14 day shoot with an eight person crew and one person cast (I just want to say I find it very brave of you to act in the first movie you're directing), I just feel that we will all be better off with COMPRESSED rather than r.a.w.

With Love,
Eric Coughlin"
 
Last edited:
Like I said... a lot of people still don't understand what "raw" is, if you think that the choice is raw OR compressed...
 
I KNOW what RAW is!


48637953997_7c6da3ceb9.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top