C500 MKII Leaked on Canon Rumors

The terms RAW & COOKED have used since the beginning of data processing, e.g. raw & cooked keyboard and mouse events (manual from the 80's Amiga computer): https://wiki.amigaos.net/wiki/Intuition_Input_and_Output_Methods

Red really does get credit for the marketing term RAW (all caps + pushing wavelets more than anyone else) even though it's an ancient term that was used long before Red existed (wavelets were already mature when Red started (JPEG2000, Cineform)).

Regarding Canon vs. ARRI as to why one camera looks better than another: emotion. The Venice evokes emotion too, though it's different than ARRI. Canon can too, it's just not as strong (and Canon can be matched to ARRI fairly closely in post and vice versa; same is true for Venice (color charts are helpful)).
 
I was talking to a friend who did lighting on Bad Boys III recently here in Atlanta; he said the DP liked the Sony Venice which was being used on it but everyone else hated it, such as the DIT who said it had issues with color.
 
Posting a single already graded sample video doesn't say much. From a DIT's perspective, being able to get good colors out of a camera is often not as much of a concern as how easy/difficult it is to get good colors out of a camera, particularly when dealing with a wide variety of challenging lighting situations, over exposure, underexposure, improper white balance or lighting colors on set, etc.

I'm sure Bad Boys III will look good in the end, but at what cost.

And to reiterate, I'm not exactly putting down the Sony Venice; I'm more so repeating something someone said. I've gathered that the functionality and ease of use from the camera was another issue people didn't like about it, but the guy I talked to didn't elaborate that much on other issues aside from saying everyone hated it except the DP, and the DIT's comments on the camera. I've personally liked the footage I've seen from it, while still preferring the Arri look. Let's keep in mind that the Sony F35 was often regarded as having the best 1080p image out there, but failed as a camera due to ergonomics and workflow.

And yeah, any high end camera looks better than C700 FF cause the C700 is an over-sized and over-priced mid-range camera. ;P
 
Last edited:
A Ferrari being better than a Porsche doesn't diminish the Porsche. The Ferrari costs more.

C700FF is a full frame 6K => 4K ~C300 II (I shot and graded both). Both cameras look good. Venice & Alexa look better (and cost more).

@Jaime- the linked YouTube video didn't seem like a good example of the C700FF (could be lenses, lighting, grading etc.).

@Eric- I've seen bad ARRI footage though I haven't yet seen bad Venice footage (I'm sure it exists- any camera can have a bad day), do you have examples of bad Venice footage?

According to Luc Besson's DP for Lucy, Hollywood didn't like the F65 because of its physical size/shape!
 
Last edited:
jcs said:
@Eric- I've seen bad ARRI footage though I haven't yet seen bad Venice footage (I'm sure it exists- any camera can have a bad day), do you have examples of bad Venice footage?
Click to expand...
Not sure what your point is. Obviously anyone could make bad footage with any camera. A lack of poor quality footage online is just an indication that unskilled shooters have yet to get their hands on a camera and upload footage of it.

Again, I wasn't saying the Venice looks bad. I was just saying that some DIT on a big budget movie apparently said he wasn't happy with dealing with the colors he was getting from the camera, regardless of if he and the colorist eventually get it to look good before releasing it in theaters.

I'm just the messenger here.

Yeah, I thought Lucy and Oblivion looked great. Interestingly, though, I seem to recall Sony indicating something like the Venice, though newer, being considered a step below the F65, though the ergonomics of the Venice would be why it'd be more adopted to current productions.
 
Last edited:
chris f said:
I did make it and feel free to use it (today was an edit day which meant that I was looking for any opportunity to not edit....)

I'm curious as to why Canon is even bothering with the C500MKII, with the FS-7 getting long in the tooth it seems like they could knock it out of the park with a C300MKIII and try to take a big chunk of that market. I shoot all of my stuff on my C200s but most of the inquiries I get for camera crew are for shows that's shooting on a FS-7 or a C300MKII. It seems for the middle part of the curve popularity/common availability plays just as big of a role as specs (if not more) - especially for multi-cam stuff.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Yeah, and so true about popular models. Tough to know when to buy in sometimes. Fs7, C300I&II, F55 were all those cameras that just keep hauling.
 
" syncable timecode (C200 plea) "
I wonder if a firmware tweak/mode could funnel audio in LTC to be embedded.
(The necessary Canon mindset achilles heel/product protection being only 1 audio track for mic reference)
I also wonder about cam companies underestimating the user value of offering feature upgrade/expansion "modules" to users who have already accessorized (cages etc) within a given model.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Not sure what your point is. Obviously anyone could make bad footage with any camera. A lack of poor quality footage online is just an indication that unskilled shooters have yet to get their hands on a camera and upload footage of it.

Again, I wasn't saying the Venice looks bad. I was just saying that some DIT on a big budget movie apparently said he wasn't happy with dealing with the colors he was getting from the camera, regardless of if he and the colorist eventually get it to look good before releasing it in theaters.

I'm just the messenger here.

Yeah, I thought Lucy and Oblivion looked great. Interestingly, though, I seem to recall Sony indicating something like the Venice, though newer, being considered a step below the F65, though the ergonomics of the Venice would be why it'd be more adopted to current productions.
Click to expand...

An anonymous comment from an unknown DIT for an anonymous movie doesn't tell us anything about what was considered an issue with a camera.

Venice skin tones look good in every example I've seen so far. Another example (Red wasn't WB'd- most DITs probably would find that color a problem too (easily fixed in post)):
 
Fahnon said:
It is very difficult to quantify and explain the image quality difference is between the best of the mid-range and the top end. But I definitely know it when I see it...
Click to expand...

If you break it down, there aren't THAT many components to it:

  • Pure sensor performance: size, resolution and dynamic range.
    The sensor will capture linear light and has no rolloff. Sensor size does not determine how footage looks: there is a huge overlap in focal range and apertures that will produce identical images between, let's say FF and MFT. Obviously, using the same settings, shooting from the same place yields different results. Additionally, a larger sensor will typically capture more light to larger photo sites and have better DR. And with current trends, a larger sensor together with appropriate lenses is a better tool to create the most desired looks today.
  • OETF: in most cases based on the Cineon film approximation, with each brand adding their own flavour.
    While the different log curves have many commonalities, I think they are also largely responsible for the look and feel of footage—but in reality this is closely coupled with pure sensor performance and color science.
  • Color science: neutral/scientific or emotional
  • Fidelity: bit depth and color precision
    The first of two destructive components. You use the elements mentioned above to build the best possible image, only to deliver it, literally in bits and pieces.
  • Compression: amount and type (intra or inter frame)
    The second of two destructive components. Uncompressed raw might be a wet dream for some, but for practical reasons it's best to learn to live with some compression.

In terms of quantifying what 'quality' is between the many combinations of the involved factors.... like James says: dynamic range is a pretty good indicator. I don't think there is a single example of a lesser camera out there that is known for superior DR.
Also, a camera capable of capturing a large dynamic range must be given proper legs to stand on, in order not to waste it. These cameras are allowed to use the best log profiles at the highest bit depth and least compression.

In my mind I like a "relaxed" image with "optical detail". I guess that's my version of saying "I know it when I see it". Here, 'relaxed' means comfortable DR and no visible banding (sensor | log curve | colour science | fidelity). 'Optical detail' means: well resolved image without digital artifacts (sensor | fidelity | compression).

Anecdotally, this is why I feel the Pocket 6K is such a unique offering at this time and why I bought it as a test bench. While it isn't 'best in class' in any of the areas (possible exception: Blackmagic RAW*), the combination of resolution, log curve, color science, fidelity, compression and last but not least price(!) makes it standout.


*= The way BMD prefers to write it in their copy.
 
Gweilo66 said:
" syncable timecode (C200 plea) "
I wonder if a firmware tweak/mode could funnel audio in LTC to be embedded.
(The necessary Canon mindset achilles heel/product protection being only 1 audio track for mic reference)
I also wonder about cam companies underestimating the user value of offering feature upgrade/expansion "modules" to users who have already accessorized (cages etc) within a given model.
Click to expand...

I've been shooting TC, when needed, to my C200 for over a year, Tentacle Sync E works great, flawless.
 
OK Guys. Can you tell us what would be the maximum you are ready to pay for the C500 II with the leaked/speculated specs of 5.9K full frame raw at 60p, 4K raw from s-35 in raw lite etc

a) 19k?
b) 15K?
c) 13K?
d) 10K?
e) C300II is 9K now. So I am not quoting anything below 10K. Nevertheless put a price.
 
(not in the market myself .... but)

Given a $2,500 Pocket6K and $4,000 S1H 6K, $13,000-$15,000 seems reasonable.

But it'll probably be $20,000.
 
jcs said:
@Jaime- the linked YouTube video didn't seem like a good example of the C700FF (could be lenses, lighting, grading etc.).
Click to expand...

Really? I thought it looked great. Is there anything in particular that stood out to you as not good?

To me, these youtube screenshots all show great skin tones, detail and dynamic range:







I won't say that it's better than an Alexa or Venice or Monstro, but I don't see how it's not as good of an image. Different? Maybe. But not bad in any way.
 
indiawilds said:
OK Guys. Can you tell us what would be the maximum you are ready to pay for the C500 II with the leaked/speculated specs of 5.9K full frame raw at 60p, 4K raw from s-35 in raw lite etc

a) 19k?
b) 15K?
c) 13K?
d) 10K?
e) C300II is 9K now. So I am not quoting anything below 10K. Nevertheless put a price.
Click to expand...

f) 0K right now. Will probably wait to see if Sony announces their new FX9 (or whatever the FS-7 replacement is called) this calendar year before I’d even consider buying the C500MKII.
 
chris f said:
f) 0K right now. Will probably wait to see if Sony announces their new FX9 (or whatever the FS-7 replacement is called) this calendar year before I’d even consider buying the C500MKII.
Click to expand...
If they could put four Sony F3 sensors stitched together to create a Sony F3 4K image...ah, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top