C700 ff

David W. Jones said:
Just saying an internal CFast 2.0 raw option would be nice for those not wanting to drop an additional $20K purchase.
Click to expand...
Understood......they built the C700 with the idea it will be a 5 year camera so it could be quite possible for them to add RAW lite in the future if enough people ask for it....there are 3 "engines" in the camera so I don't think it would be a hardware issue....just my thoughts.

Jim Martin
CinemaWorks
 
I guess the price is fair compared to its FF competitors but from where I sit it looks like an extra $25,000 over a C200/EVA1 for the larger sensor... which doesn’t seem terribly worth it... even not withstanding the other compromises along the way.

I’m sure canon knows their market but this would seem a whole lot more compelling at half the price.
 
NorBro said:
If one reads into what one is reading, what exactly is CRL?

We know it stands for 'Cinema RAW Light' but does anyone know how it truly compares to traditional RAW outputs/recording? (I don't.)

Currently, you're not able to manipulate the metadata the same way you can with the other RAW offerings.

So what is CRL? Because IMO, it's simply a new format created for a new camera mainly for marketing purposes, which may be visually very similar to other options like XAVC, XF-AVC, AVC Intra, ProRes, etc.

I'm sure it's providing tons of information from the sensor, but so are the other formats. Why can't we get into that metadata?

Not that I'm supporting CODEX because I have zero experience with it, but it appears to be on an entirely different level than CRL...so what they are doing makes sense?
Click to expand...

I have a little experience with Codex, I have shot it, done some CC and grading with it. It's an extremely robust RAW recording system based upon integrated, proprietary camera connections and uses proprietary drives and infrastructure for closed ended post workflow. The most important aspect of what Codex actually IS has little to do with it's technical specs, it has everything to do with it's perceived robustness, reliability and workflow. It is specified in most of the studios deliverable requirements for feature films, it is a known commodity and it is extremely reliable. It makes sense that the C700 supports it given that Canon intends the C700 and C700 FF more for feature production, perhaps some episodic. Many completion bonds for features specify the Codex workflow. I have a feeling the C700 FF doesn't include CRL simply because they signed an exclusive integration deal with Codex as the RAW partner for their flagship camera, not because they couldn't include it from a technical or internal Canon marketing directive.

From Loren Simons of Canon, he would be the one to clarify exactly what CRL is.

"EOS C200 captures its RAW information in a proprietary RAW Gamut and RAW Gamma. This data needs to be taken from their RAW spaces, and conformed into one of the many gamma curves or color spaces to begin the post-production process. The footage from the EOS C200 can be conformed into a wide range of spaces, from Cinema Gamut down to BT.709, and from Canon Log 2 to Wide DR. The choice is yours and dependent on the amount of post-production resources you’re planning to allocate. However, if you are shooting in the RAW format presumably you’re going to want to take full advantage of the information captured utilizing a combination of Canon Log 2 and Cinema Gamut. This Canon Log 2 and Cinema Gamut combination is the most ideal starting point for an HDR workflow, providing the full 15 stop dynamic range the sensor has to offer, as well as the widest range of encoded colors."

https://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2017/eos-c200-post-production-brief.htmlp

FWIW, I do believe CRL is a true RAW format, meaning that the signal is recorded straight from the sensor and has to be Debayered to be viewed and worked with, isn't that all? A format that must be Debayered but doesn't include all of the parameter adjustments that RED or other RAW formats do is still technically RAW, isn't it?
 
I don't agree...just no comparison IMO with a CRL workflow and one of the two above.

The people who create and name these things may call it whatever they would like (in this case RED calls it 'REDCODE RAW' not me), but the way CinemaDNG and R3D workflows are currently set up (particularly in FCPX and Resolve for myself) is the best IMO.
 
NorBro said:
If one reads into what one is reading, what exactly is CRL?

We know it stands for 'Cinema RAW Light' but does anyone know how it truly compares to traditional RAW outputs/recording? (I don't.)

Currently, you're not able to manipulate the metadata the same way you can with the other RAW offerings.

So what is CRL? Because IMO, it's simply a new format created for a new camera mainly for marketing purposes, which may be visually very similar to other options like XAVC, XF-AVC, AVC Intra, ProRes, etc.

I'm sure it's providing tons of information from the sensor, but so are the other formats. Why can't we get into that metadata?

Not that I'm supporting CODEX because I have zero experience with it, but it appears to be on an entirely different level than CRL...so what they are doing makes sense?
Click to expand...

Indeed, it is "raw" in name only.

Another classic piece of marketing-speak spin from Canon.
 
There are lots of RAW formats that are somewhat processed, and are still considered RAW. Like the compressed RAW on the a7R II.

DNG is a standard for RAW images and it includes provisions for things like 10-bit log gamma and compression. So, you can have a 10-bit log compressed DNG image, and it's still RAW.

Personally, I consider a format to be RAW if it still needs to be debayered. It also helps if the color gamut has not been altered (i.e. if the information is still stored as a simple transformation of the brightness of each photosite in the sensor).

No idea if the C200 meets these criteria, but my guess is that it does.
 
David W. Jones said:
OK, guess I had it wrong.

Codex recorder $6995
2TB Drive $6980
1TB Drive $5350
Dock $5750

So around an additional $20K on top of the camera price of $33K
Click to expand...

The problem for us mere mortals is not the Codex, but it costing a whooping 60% of the cost of the camera. The cost makes it look as if there is some rocket science involved. Normally things cost more if the cost of development and sales is apportioned over less sales numbers. So guess Codex may have estimated the number of such recorders, media and readers be less than 100. Just a guess.

For large studios and feature film producers this may just be a small line item not worth much of discussion time. However, people beyond this esoteric group, the adoption will be less due to Codex cost being the bottleneck. Unless of course there are rental agencies close by.

Canon faced challenges with C500 raw as third party companies like CD never gave support, prioritising their efforts towards Sony FS700 and other cameras. So Canon rightly junked these cheaper albeit untrustworthy third party alternatives and went with premium Codex solution so that the premium clientele is not left fuming.

C700FF without Codex will be a stretch budget for many. So wait for C300 III. However, the files will miss the look of C700FF.
 
indiawilds said:
Canon faced challenges with C500 raw as third party companies like CD never gave support, prioritising their efforts towards Sony FS700 and other cameras. So Canon rightly junked these cheaper albeit untrustworthy third party alternatives and went with premium Codex solution so that the premium clientele is not left fuming.
Click to expand...

Before we get too far down that road... Was it really Convergent Design at fault or was it Canon not providing the information needed for CD to make it work? I'm guessing the fault lies with Canon on this issue, it does CD no good to ignore an option, if the information was available, support would generate more sales and probably not cost very much in research/development.
 
indiawilds said:
Canon faced challenges with C500 raw as third party companies like CD never gave support, prioritising their efforts towards Sony FS700 and other cameras. So Canon rightly junked these cheaper albeit untrustworthy third party alternatives and went with premium Codex solution so that the premium clientele is not left fuming.
Click to expand...

The CODEX/Canon relationship didn't begin with the C700. They actually also supported the C500, which I'm assuming only Hollywood used that combo (if they did pick up the camera), especially back then.

And CD did provide support for the C500. The Ki Pro Quad and eventually the 7Q were literally the main solutions anyone used with that camera besides maybe the Shoguns later on when they unlocked 4K RAW --> 4K ProRes signal support.

I only know this because I briefly owned the C500 and was looking into CODEX and also desperately hoping someone would support 4K/60p RAW to 4K/60p ProRes but by then the camera was long dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stKw2AbZwNg
 
indiawilds said:
For large studios and feature film producers this may just be a small line item not worth much of discussion time. However, people beyond this esoteric group, the adoption will be less due to Codex cost being the bottleneck. Unless of course there are rental agencies close by.
Click to expand...

You're not getting it. This camera isn't designed for the masses, it's designed for the professionals, most of whom rent their cameras and Codex recorders for a production. They're not intended to sell in large volumes, that's what the C200 is for. No one considering a C200 cares about Codex recorders, and no one who's debating between an Alexa + Codex, Monstro, Varicam Pure (a Varicam 35 with Codex recoerders) etc is going to care about a C200 as a main camera anyway.

Canon is trying to compete with the likes of the Alexa 65 and Millenium DXL2 with the C700, both of which are rental only cameras.
 
yoclay said:
But Redcode RAW is not raw. It's a wavelet compression scheme.
And in fact I would say that it does compare to RED "RAW" in that the latter is also most frequently shot in a 3:1 quality ratio.
Click to expand...

It IS raw. The compression method doesn't alter the nature of the data that's being compressed with it. And it's quite rare to find Red raw recorded at 3:1. Not even Red recommends that on most projects due to the data rates involved.
 
Tamerlin said:
You're not getting it. This camera isn't designed for the masses, it's designed for the professionals, most of whom rent their cameras and Codex recorders for a production.
Click to expand...


I guess I don't get it either, as I kind of see this camera priced at mid-level owner-op types needing full frame, rather than the high end feature film rental crop.
 
David W. Jones said:
I guess I don't get it either, as I kind of see this camera priced at mid-level owner-op types needing full frame, rather than the high end feature film rental crop.
Click to expand...

That it's designed around Codex recorders makes it pretty clear that it's intended for the high end productions.
 
Tamerlin said:
You're not getting it. This camera isn't designed for the masses, it's designed for the professionals, most of whom rent their cameras and Codex recorders for a production. They're not intended to sell in large volumes, that's what the C200 is for. No one considering a C200 cares about Codex recorders, and no one who's debating between an Alexa + Codex, Monstro, Varicam Pure (a Varicam 35 with Codex recoerders) etc is going to care about a C200 as a main camera anyway.

Canon is trying to compete with the likes of the Alexa 65 and Millenium DXL2 with the C700, both of which are rental only cameras.
Click to expand...

Ok if that is the case and money is no object why would any serious production rent this over the Alexa 65? There is a lot more aesthetic choice that goes behind renting a camera than just the sensor size. If few productions ever bothered to rent the first C700 I doubt that will suddenly change with the FF C700. If a project gave me the option of selecting the camera with a blank rental budget check I’m going with the Alexa every time. Pretty sure a lot of film makers feel the same way.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
Ok if that is the case and money is no object why would any serious production rent this over the Alexa 65? There is a lot more aesthetic choice that goes behind rent No a camera than just the sensor size. If few productions ever bothered to rent the first C700 I doubt that will suddenly change with the FF C700. If a project gave me the option of selecting the camera with a blank rental budget check I’m going with the Alexa every time. Pretty sure a lot of film makers feel the same way.
Click to expand...

A lot do feel that way. A lot favor Red, and there are some that favor Panavision, and some that favor Panasonic, and others Sony. Part of it is the look, part of it is the features. I know that there are some cinematographers out there who like Canon cameras, I don't know whether or not they're making much headway in Hollywood. I suspect that they're more common in the Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube Red world.

Why would anyone choose this over an Alexa 65? I don't know. I wouldn't... if I had a blank rental check I'd be debating between a Millenium DXL and an Alexa 65 as well.
 
Tamerlin said:
That it's designed around Codex recorders makes it pretty clear that it's intended for the high end productions.
Click to expand...

But that's only one recording option for it. Just like CODEX is only one recording option for Alexa and V35. All of them have capable internal recording options.

I like Canon color science, but I just don't see this camera taking off. The original C700 has undoubtedly been a flop and at the high-end they are aiming for, productions are going to choose Arri, Panavision or RED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top