canon C series dslr's

I agree with the direction this conversation is going. But, still, there are times where I don't wanna have an extra couple pounds strapped onto my camera rig. The external recorders are getting better and more affordable all the time, so maybe there will be a device that is much smaller, lighter, and less power-hungry than the options we have today.

But, really, there are a lot of times where it needs to be just me and my camera. Nothing else.
 
extra couple pounds - why is that so heavy ?
the pix is less then half kilo , the uni cam heads are about 2-3 kilo -
get in shape , you probaly didnt had the chance for hl57 with bvv5 :-)
you and your camera , ha
 
The all-in-one body is nice. But perhaps the sectioned out pieces could be a more efficient and flexible upgrade path. pros and cons.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Well SD doesn't look good at all when you project it to 125" which is what I do :) And that includes SD projectors, which I had before. 1080p works great for me.
Click to expand...

I was merely fantasizing that we could have skipped HD and gone straight to 4K. 1080p is a mild upgrade and an annoying interim, on the one hand, but still an improvement over SD on the other hand. But that doesn't even begin to touch on the factors that led to the adoption of HD.


ps. SD doesn't look good on an HD television set either, much less a 125" projection. =)
 
Last edited:
James0b57 said:
I kept a large screen tube tv around, and when I watch a DVD on it vs. a Blue Ray on an HD tv, I actually prefer it. There is a pleasantness to the blurry, yet smooth look. I am specifically referring to the look of DVD on an SD CRT television set. A dvd on an hdtv set is horrid.

.
Click to expand...

I have a nice 50+ Samsung LCD with Bluray viewing environment and a CRT with DVD in another room. Meh, more often than not, we wind up with the DVD/CRT combo for watching movies. Don't know if I prefer it, but I certainly don't mind it. I can certainly see the benefit of aquiring in 4K, but I thnik people are kidding themselves if they think there is any hunger for viewing on the consumer end in 4K. Not gonna happen. I'm a photographer (25+ years), and I would say I'm more visually attuned than most consumers, and even I don't care. Jannard has a long row to hoe with pushing this 4K thing. Seriously, nobody cares.

I remember back in the day when they were talking about the next great audio standard for CDs that was going to be 24 bit 96K. Guess which direction that went. The consumer does not hunger for fidelity. Their standards are far less than "good enough".
 
f64manray said:
I have a nice 50+ Samsung LCD with Bluray viewing environment and a CRT with DVD in another room. Meh, more often than not, we wind up with the DVD/CRT combo for watching movies. Don't know if I prefer it, but I certainly don't mind it. I can certainly see the benefit of aquiring in 4K, but I thnik people are kidding themselves if they think there is any hunger for viewing on the consumer end in 4K. Not gonna happen. I'm a photographer (25+ years), and I would say I'm more visually attuned than most consumers, and even I don't care. Jannard has a long row to hoe with pushing this 4K thing. Seriously, nobody cares.

I remember back in the day when they were talking about the next great audio standard for CDs that was going to be 24 bit 96K. Guess which direction that went. The consumer does not hunger for fidelity. Their standards are far less than "good enough".
Click to expand...

Local REGAL theaters metroplex just converted to 4k Sony's on 14 out of 16 screens. Theatrical release, high end event video, and digital signage video walls will be where this format flourishes for some time to come.

But shooting in 4k also produces better quality HD and 2k with higher MTF and better micro contrast in the critical 1.2k to 1.6k fine detail range for HD. It is not just about the display resolution format.
 
Razz16mm said:
Local REGAL theaters metroplex just converted to 4k Sony's on 14 out of 16 screens. Theatrical release, high end event video, and digital signage video walls will be where this format flourishes for some time to come.

But shooting in 4k also produces better quality HD and 2k with higher MTF and better micro contrast in the critical 1.2k to 1.6k fine detail range for HD. It is not just about the display resolution format.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wasn't thinking of theatrical exhibition. If I were a theater owner, I'd be all over 4K projectors instead of handling film and reel changes, and all of the mechanics of the current projection system. I was making a statement about the home market and broadcast. Who knows what lies in the future of movie exhibition. Culture is changing. It's hard to see how people will consume movies in the future.
 
f64manray said:
Yeah, I wasn't thinking of theatrical exhibition. If I were a theater owner, I'd be all over 4K projectors instead of handling film and reel changes, and all of the mechanics of the current projection system. I was making a statement about the home market and broadcast. Who knows what lies in the future of movie exhibition. Culture is changing. It's hard to see how people will consume movies in the future.
Click to expand...

I agree.The Audio world says a lot as to where this may head. Sony recently closed their SACD plant down - they smelt the coffee. Couldn't convince people to pay the premium for music that most people couldn't tell apart from a CD at like twice the price. The ipod had defined that people wanted it portable, convenient and able to store most of their library on it. Same thing happening here perhaps. In the future, I see a lot of folks wanting to watch a movie on the go on an ipad like device. The screen can only go so big before the pixels are so small you cannot appreciate a 4k ipad size screen when it comes. I bought a full HD Sony VAIO laptop a few years ago with a largish screen. Was nice but the size really hampered its usefulness. Yes it was Full HD but I couldn't appreciate it as the screen was relatively small compared to my main Bravia. If we extrapolate, I guess you need to have a screen bigger than a certain size to truly appreciate 4 K as an end user, and that means lotsa money. Found a neat trick though - at home on the big screen - if you want it sharper - move back from the screen LOL. Ahhh there we go - can't see the pixels anymore and 1080p looks amazing he he he. Even VHS video looks decent if you move far back enough he he he
 
I love dvxuser. I love the discussions and topics etc. I think the Canon C300 might be the camera for me. Do I care that it is not 4K? Not really. What about 2k? It would be nice but not a deal breaker for me. Honestly I find it totally ridiculous all the talk on here about resolution. "oh you gotta get the this camera cause it's 4k" Oh that camera is only 1080 so it's old technology. Must have 2k or 4k"
and yet 99.999% of people on here will never produce a film that gets beyond the web or DVD release. Bottom line. If you are working on a serious feature film, costing hundreds of thousands to millions, then you will just RENT the latest and greatest at that time. You won't be mortgaging your home and eating canned beans for the next 10 years just so you can afford to BUY at 40 -80K camera (that will be obsolete in 5 or 6 years). I realize on dvxuser alot of the talk is simply what we DREAM of doing. That's totally cool. and fun to engage in. And yes there are professionals on here that can justify the expense of purchasing high dollar cameras that cost more than the productions they do. But for the most part that's not most of us here.
What about the scarlett priced at 9k? (I mean 14k). If it will do everything thing you need it to and give you the best picture then go for it (best does NOT only mean highest resolution. A pleasing, filmic image in my opition has very little to do with how many lines of resolution it is. It's the lighting, the color, the contrast, the latitude etc.) I'm not interested in bashing a camera company but for me, I just feel more comfortable when involved in a big production with lots of people involved and $$..to have equipment that has a large company standing behind it with a proven long term track record of dependable products, distribution and tech support that I don't have to worry about issues on set like the ones Phillip Bloom encountered. The scarlett sounds appealing...but I can't afford the time or the money to be a beta testor or lab rat, nor pay thousands for something that all the functions don't work..yet...and will have to wait for upgrades after I purchase it.

If the canon's price comes in below 15k then I MIGHT consider buying it, only if I can see that it will pay for itself in a decent amount of time. But back to the 4k thing: I don't care it's only 1080! It looks great! the dynamic latitude and features (to me) are more important. I'm not making movies that you'll see at your local AMC theater next year. Are you?? Then why sweat over the 4k thing unless that super rich, sharp, better than life picture really gets you off and gives you a thrill better than heroine or cocaine! If you're doing sci fi with tons of chroma key and compositing, then okay, but again, your budget is probably hundreds of thousands or millions. But frankly, I think on dvxuser..most of the people who are demanding a camera be 4k before they even consider it...probably don't really need it. I mean, if I'm doing a film, documentary, or whatever and my budget is less than 100k, the film is gonna look tons..TONS better if I spend that money on proper lighting, creative dolly moves, an experienced, seasoned lighting gaffer and production designer, great locations and good actors, etc...NOT on a 40 - 80k camera that will still look like super sharp video instead of film because I skimped on the other aspects of production, thinking that all I need is a 4k resolution camera to make good movies :)
 
Last edited:
I have had a local 30 second commercial play at a local theater. I am definately not the next Speilberg. So you never know where your work may end up. Yes it was HD.
 
I have revamped my "how many megapixels can I see" test and run it again on 3 different screens, 22", 32" and 52", and my conclusion remains: my eyes can't benefit from resolution beyond 1080p at relevant screen-size--to--viewing-distance ratios (below 0.7, e.g. 96" screen at 3.5m); I obviously haven't ran the test oon a theater, but for home use I'm pretty sure I can't see 4K - http://www.similaar.com/foto/mpix/mpix2.html - even so, it could be nice to have 4K for acquisition, but again only for some stuff
 
NormanBates said:
I have revamped my "how many megapixels can I see" test and run it again on 3 different screens, 22", 32" and 52", and my conclusion remains: my eyes can't benefit from resolution beyond 1080p at relevant screen-size--to--viewing-distance ratios (below 0.7, e.g. 96" screen at 3.5m); I obviously haven't ran the test oon a theater, but for home use I'm pretty sure I can't see 4K - http://www.similaar.com/foto/mpix/mpix2.html - even so, it could be nice to have 4K for acquisition, but again only for some stuff
Click to expand...

I have seen 4kHD medical imaging on a 50" display from 4kHD video camera original at 6-8 feet at a trade show and it is obviously superior to 1080p. My eyes aren't all that good either. It is the improvement in midrange detail resolution in the 1.2k to 1.6k range that is really obvious, not over 2k detail.
 
Size of screen is relative as well. As I am sure you are all aware of.

720p on a 4inch cell phone screen held at arms length is going to be blistering razor sharp detail.


Once a screen gets over 40", 4k vs 1080p will start to show up more obviously. Even on my 15" 1050p MBP screen, I can perceive pixels up to 3ft away. Meaning, that for a laptop, 4k would be better than 1080p, because the screen is often within 3ft from the users face. Though, I imagine casually walking into a room during a Christmas party, and glancing at a TV across the room while I catch up with a relative, I doubt I would notice the difference in screen resolution, or even care.

But if I am sitting at home, or in a theater, it definitely makes a difference. 2K projectors at movie theaters bother me, but if I ignore, I can get past it. Kind of like watching netflix, or hulu. The image is awful, but I can deal with it. But these days, if I am going to pay $14+ to see a film, I want it in at least 4k. It's an awful feeling when a 2k projector is sharply focused on the screen, and pixels are visible.

If we went back to SD, would I complain? Yeah. Would I stop filming? Heck no!

4k is exciting. I eagerly welcome it. Is it necessary? No, but think of the possibilities.
 
James0b57 said:
Size of screen is relative as well. As I am sure you are all aware of.

720p on a 4inch cell phone screen held at arms length is going to be blistering razor sharp detail.


Once a screen gets over 40", 4k vs 1080p will start to show up more obviously. Even on my 15" 1050p MBP screen, I can perceive pixels up to 3ft away. Meaning, that for a laptop, 4k would be better than 1080p, because the screen is often within 3ft from the users face. Though, I imagine casually walking into a room during a Christmas party, and glancing at a TV across the room while I catch up with a relative, I doubt I would notice the difference in screen resolution, or even care.

But if I am sitting at home, or in a theater, it definitely makes a difference. 2K projectors at movie theaters bother me, but if I ignore, I can get past it. Kind of like watching netflix, or hulu. The image is awful, but I can deal with it. But these days, if I am going to pay $14+ to see a film, I want it in at least 4k. It's an awful feeling when a 2k projector is sharply focused on the screen, and pixels are visible.

If we went back to SD, would I complain? Yeah. Would I stop filming? Heck no!

4k is exciting. I eagerly welcome it. Is it necessary? No, but think of the possibilities.
Click to expand...

It's not only about seeing pixels though. I have a 125" screen that I project 1080p on. Sure, I can't actually discern the pixels, but if I generate say text with photoshop and do not anti-alias it, I'll see the jagged bits on angled lines. The higher the resolution you go, the less you have to blur high spatial edges. This is where I think 4k will make the biggest difference.
 
Am I the only one who thinks the press release, photoshop of a "C" on a 1D, and possibly even the concept itself didn't exist until Red took them to school?

Am I the only one therefore not confident it's really going to happen?
 
Lee, haha, you're probably right. Though, whatever the truth of the matter is, it is still a ways out.
 
I don't think it's a ways out (like years out). Canon has hinted it won't be "years plural" and another site has said it will be some time in 2012. The "C" is not Photoshopped. I saw this DSLR in person at the Paramount event, but it was under glass. However, it did look like a 1D body with just a "C" badge applied. They might have done this to throw off competitors, who knows.

If the 2012 timeframe is correct, then this camera has been in development well before the RED Scarlet announcement. You can't really design a camera like this in a year.
 
Last edited:
Canon has had a prototype 4K prototype at shows, so I'd imagine they have been working on 4K for some time already.

Well, the C1, or whatever it is, will not be effecting my next purchase, but I look forward to it hitting the scene when it does. Seems like a near ideal camera for many applications.
 
Last edited:
It would make sense for Canon to build it into a 1D body, with all the supporting gubbins in place, as this would save a heck of a lot of development, especially if, as they say, they're using a 1Dx sensor.

They could gut the mirror box and put an EVF in place if were video specific.

Maybe even replacing the gigabit ethernet port with thunderbolt, if ethernet isn't fast enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top