C100: Canon C100 Mark II Film & BTS Video from Joe Simon

That was great! The C100 MKII looked fantastic. The compression on youtube is very clean too. Definitely some secret sauce.
 
Really don't get these videos.

Within a professional production, when there's weeks of pre-prod, a decent crew (10+), several main characters plus extras, a considerable amount of resources, locations (which have had to be located and secured), rented lighting, cam aks and other items, props, wardrobe, makeup, catering, mandatory insurance.. etc, why would anyone EVER use a paltry 24Mbps camera at all? Specially when a classic ALEXA or an AMIRA costs 500/day (times 3 for a week)??

As a producer I'd fire the clever mind who decides to shoot such things with a consumer camera. It's ok for a DIY production with no budget, no tools and everyone donating his/her time (which happens only once), but for a proper production?

Like, "look how great it will all look if you shoot this camera with the resources of a professional production"? Pointless. Sorry to be so blunt.
 
Last edited:
Couldn't disagree more.

The C100 is not a consumer camera.

It has 12 stops of latitude, Canon mojo and a great image.

This was a demo that show that it can comptete with the bigger boys.

Is it the best choice? Maybe not but when you can get results like that why not use it.

And yes, I am a former Red Epic owner, so I know what big crews and big budgets are like.
 
Didn't a movie shot on the iphone get through sundance recently?

I'm the LAST guy to say "The camera doesn't matter" but I'm also the first guy to say "Just because it's not the most expensive camera doesn't mean it's a bad project."

I mean if Aronofsky can shoot on DSLR's, and Avengers can throw some 7d footage in there... I'm really not going to call a production unprofessional just because of the camera they chose to shot on.

Right tool for the job etc.
 
jindrich said:
Really don't get these videos.

Within a professional production, when there's weeks of pre-prod, a decent crew (10+), several main characters plus extras, a considerable amount of resources, locations (which have had to be located and secured), rented lighting, cam aks and other items, props, wardrobe, makeup, catering, mandatory insurance.. etc, why would anyone EVER use a paltry 24Mbps camera at all? Specially when a classic ALEXA or an AMIRA costs 500/day (times 3 for a week)??

As a producer I'd fire the clever mind who decides to shoot such things with a consumer camera. It's ok for a DIY production with no budget, no tools and everyone donating his/her time (which happens only once), but for a proper production?

Like, "look how great it will all look if you shoot this camera with the resources of a professional production"? Pointless. Sorry to be so blunt.
Click to expand...


Make sure to never shoot with this producer. He's more concerned about camera specs than getting the shot. It's a big world out there with lots of content to shoot. Not all of it needs an Alexa.
 
jindrich said:
...why would anyone EVER use a paltry 24Mbps camera at all?
Click to expand...

I agree that this is not a main scenario for using this type of camera, but somebody want to show the best result of work with this camera.

And why? I think that this is the advertise of the new version of camera.

Pictures are great, but would be nice to see also the raw footages before color grading. Also would be nice to know the type of record - internal vs. external.
 
dustylense said:
Make sure to never shoot with this producer. He's more concerned about camera specs than getting the shot. It's a big world out there with lots of content to shoot. Not all of it needs an Alexa.
Click to expand...
X2! That was really nice video that "did it". Shot on a camera body thats what $5,500!
 
I have nothing against Canon shooting a video with say, a pair of indie or wedding guys, explaining how much the C100 brings to their business and how satisfied their clients are, etc etc. That is both realistic and laudable.

But here Canon is putting a tool in the wrong place just for the sake of advertising his own product, and it all feels forced and absurd. Whereas it's not a massive project, the video appears to be a standard €50k budget short. That's NOT counting the Royalties/buyout rights for the models/actors, where, in an ALL-Media ALL-Countries 6month-1year AD short like this, can easily run in the €25k-50k PER Main ACTOR.

With those figures you don't skimp on the camera just to save €500 in total, shoot at 24Mbps and then have chroma noise issues at Post and therefore risk the thousands of €€ invested. That is why I wrote "I'd fire the responsible that chose such camera for the project".

Then you can say, It's just Canon making an ad for his C100. Right. Then I hear all possible customers thinking "If I have access to such crew, and I can rent a MOVI, an ARRI M18, Kinos and Dedos and a JokerBug with a Chinese lantern, a Paralinx with a director's Monitor, Car mounting devices, gaffer truck, etc, etc........ I WOULDN'T shoot that with a C100 to start with."
"Specially not when I have to rent/buy a camera rig that costs MORE than the camera itself, just to shoot it from the shoulder!"


Don't take me wrong. I love the video and it's very well made. It's forcing the C100 in there, what feels ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
This overall does not seem like a very impressive piece of content for the c100. There are blown out highlights everywhere and the skin tones are a green/yellow mess.. About the only thing more distracting then that is the awful audio mix and acting of the old couple at the end.
 
For all the armchair critics out there... please, let's see your brilliant work!

Also who cares what the intermediate footage looked like. That isn't the point. Not every shot requires perfectly held highlights to be worth using. A good DP makes choices on set and doesn't need to preserve every single ounce of latitude so they can tweak highlights and colors for hours in post. Many of us work on projects that we can't even participate in the edit.

Personally, I'm not amazingly impressed with this piece because obviously there are a ton of resources behind it. It has a good look but I think people who make wedding "films" like this (and especially those who finance them) are more than a little insane. But hey, I make mostly corporate docs, who am I to judge.

The piece looks quite good though, and shooting over cranked in camera is obviously a nice addition I wish I had in my mk1. But my a7s cuts it for now.
 
I'm disappointed by a lot of the comments on this thread but that's the internet. Maybe Joe should have just shot some charts for you spec folks. He shows how the camera performs and in a real production environment and I think the C100 MKII looks very good. Actually surprised and I owned a C100.
 
Erik Naso said:
I'm disappointed by a lot of the comments on this thread but that's the internet. Maybe Joe should have just shot some charts for you spec folks. He shows how the camera performs and in a real production environment and I think the C100 MKII looks very good. Actually surprised and I owned a C100.
Click to expand...
+1
 
jindrich said:
As a producer I'd fire the clever mind who decides to shoot such things with a consumer camera. It's ok for a DIY production with no budget, no tools and everyone donating his/her time (which happens only once), but for a proper production?

Like, "look how great it will all look if you shoot this camera with the resources of a professional production"? Pointless. Sorry to be so blunt.
Click to expand...

I agree, use any of todays camera into that production and they all will look great, even the latest iphone would have looked awesome in such a controlled environment so I"m not sure what the point of that video was beside the obvious fact it's just a commercial. Canon is just smarter then any other brand out there when it comes to marketing their product, how many times do we see video's from pre-productions camera's that look like crap, just because they lend the camera to a photographer that shoots some video or a videographer that shoots his cat with it.
 
Lets be honest. I will be happy to have shot that video. My C300 can't do slow motion at 1080p. I don't do weddings. However, can appreciate the content.
 
My gopro can do slomo at 2.7K, heck, all my camera's I have owned the past years could do slomo at 1080p so there is nothing special about that. I think you should see that video for what it is, a well prepared and well shot commercial. I wouldn't expect anything less from Joe, give him a smarthpone and it will most likely look good as well.
 
NOA said:
My gopro can do slomo at 2.7K, heck, all my camera's I have owned the past years could do slomo at 1080p so there is nothing special about that. I think you should see that video for what it is, a well prepared and well shot commercial. I wouldn't expect anything less from Joe, give him a smarthpone and it will most likely look good as well.
Click to expand...
A lot of cameras do HFR but dont do them very well. Seems 60p is the sweet spot for now on most.
 
NOA said:
My gopro can do slomo at 2.7K, heck, all my camera's I have owned the past years could do slomo at 1080p so there is nothing special about that. I think you should see that video for what it is, a well prepared and well shot commercial. I wouldn't expect anything less from Joe, give him a smarthpone and it will most likely look good as well.
Click to expand...

Right! Perhaps the most ridiculous comment of this thread so far!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top