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

[jimagine]

I remember reading about a blindfold comparison of audio pre-amps by professional recording engineers, and they couldn't pick out the expensive pre-amps from the cheap ones. I imagine its a lot like that in this case, with good lighting, skilled videographers, and production crew I doubt the professionals here could pick out a C100 from a Red. I know 99.9999 of the public can't.

I was part of that original pre-amp test.
It was quite an affair, very controlled and really revealing.

In blind tests, amongst a panoply of live and remote pros and musicians, there was absolutely no ability, on average, for anyone to identify high-end analog pres like Neve strips etc. from $150, Musician's Friend tube boxes or simple digital inputs on inexpensive mixers.

I've often thought of that analogy with tests like the Zacuto one where Scorsese chose the look of the GH2.

I'm confident that I could differentiate between a similarly controlled blind test with an Alexa and, say a 5D or a GH2 easily, but on a well lit set and a quality DP, I wouldn't be surprised if I had trouble differentiating any number of other cameras. Now imagine the people that really matter - the viewers - and does anyone really think they could differentiate between a well shot C100 MK2 and an Alexa or F55? Lot's of them would probably prefer the look of the Canon, all things being equal.

I thought it was a nice promo of a really nice little production camera.
I'd like to rent one for a spot just to work with it. I bet I'll love it for regional spot work.

 

[sonofaresiii]

does anyone really think they could differentiate between a well shot C100 MK2 and an Alexa or F55?

No, but most of them probably couldn't identify the difference between SD and HD, that doesn't mean it isn't there. They'd know that one is "better" than the other, or one is more "low budget" than the other or something but couldn't tell you why.


Just like I'm pretty confident I could bathe an entire scene in blue light and most of the people wouldn't really register it until I specifically pointed it out... but they'd certainly "feel" the cooler tone.

The same is likely true of a lot of cameras. Of course, it totally matters how the cameras are used and under what conditions. Might not notice the extra stops of latitude one camera would give over another if the scene is low-contrast.

 

[Michael Thames]

I was part of that original pre-amp test.
It was quite an affair, very controlled and really revealing.

In blind tests, amongst a panoply of live and remote pros and musicians, there was absolutely no ability, on average, for anyone to identify high-end analog pres like Neve strips etc. from $150, Musician's Friend tube boxes or simple digital inputs on inexpensive mixers.

I've often thought of that analogy with tests like the Zacuto one where Scorsese chose the look of the GH2.

I'm confident that I could differentiate between a similarly controlled blind test with an Alexa and, say a 5D or a GH2 easily, but on a well lit set and a quality DP, I wouldn't be surprised if I had trouble differentiating any number of other cameras. Now imagine the people that really matter - the viewers - and does anyone really think they could differentiate between a well shot C100 MK2 and an Alexa or F55? Lot's of them would probably prefer the look of the Canon, all things being equal.

I thought it was a nice promo of a really nice little production camera.
I'd like to rent one for a spot just to work with it. I bet I'll love it for regional spot work.

Ahaw good, you confirm my memory was correct. I'm intrigued about Scorsesce choosing the GH2! I'll have to google that.

Yes, the C100 is more women than I can handle..... and I'll probably never get my paws on an Alexa and that's OK with me.

 

[jm.gardiner]

I believe it was Francis Ford Coppola who picked the GH camera out of the Zacuto test. And almost everyone in the room dissagreed, the grade was very saturated and videoy looking to the eye.

 

[jpblack]

The GH2 had approx. 20-25 more light fixtures (DPs were allowed to enhance the basic lighting)..not quite a valid test..

 

[Michael Thames]

The GH2 had approx. 20-25 more light fixtures (DPs were allowed to enhance the basic lighting)..not quite a valid test..

The way I understand it each DP had full creative process to use the camera and lighting as they choose. The message is loud and clear in this video..... you can spend $100,000 bucks on a camera or $800.00 and get the same relative results......

I figure the C300 is the same as the C100 with a Blade.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...c-gh2-video-better-than-red-arri-says-coppola

 

[slidemaster]

MarkII C100 should make a better picture than the C300 mark I because of the upgraded processor. If the signal is output that is.

 

[Michael Thames]

MarkII C100 should make a better picture than the C300 mark I because of the upgraded processor. If the signal is output that is.

That maybe be true, but alas, I have the C100 MKI and a Blade. I do need to get another C100 though, and most likely will buy a used C100 MKI again. For me what turns out to be the most nerve wracking thing about the C100 is matching it up with my 5D3....... life would be so much easier if I didn't have to worry about that! Hence the need for another C100.

 

[jimagine]

I believe it was Francis Ford Coppola who picked the GH camera out of the Zacuto test. And almost everyone in the room dissagreed, the grade was very saturated and videoy looking to the eye.

Sorry, Coppola. And yeah, what does he know about film making.

 

[wuffer]

The GH2 had approx. 20-25 more light fixtures (DPs were allowed to enhance the basic lighting)..not quite a valid test..

exactly.
BIG stuff vs. GH2 = a lot of etat for supporting gear

Have a closer look once more; the GH2 is indeed the least worst shot of this 'darkroom' in my eyes

 

[bclighting]

What if you did not look at the video as a whole at all? Don't see it as a complete production with forethought. See is rather as individual situations. Example...this is what it would look like outdoors with diffusion. This is the color rendition when these elements are present. Look at the video more like a collection of possible situations that you may encounter, or attempt to set up, in some shape or form.

I think many are viewing this video as an entire production....seeing it as one cohesive thought. In that respect...yes, it has a lot of valuable production elements to it and a very well planned out execution. If you view it as a segmented piece that has possible real life situations that you most definitely will strive to achieve....through that lens, its very helpful.

Personally, I want to see what this camera looks like when the scene is lit properly. I want to see it respond in areas of movement. I want to see how it handles different environments. Yes, to have all of these elements present in a single production takes a lot of effort and money. It is nice to show potential customers how the camera looks in these environments. For that reason, I place no blame. There will be plenty of run and gun images that come out of this camera. I am thankful that I can see how it looks at its best. I wish all companies would make a release showing off their products in their best light.

What I hate is when a nice camera is released and the first dozen videos are dog s*%t.

Well said! I didn't see it that way at first but after your points I agree completely!

 

[Michael Thames]

We have 2 C100 MK Is left.....you can PM if you want..

Jim Martin

Jim, thanks! I do believe in spreading the love around...... and need to think outside the NYC box, if you catch my drift. Unfortunately, now is not the time to get a new camera...... if you still have one in a few more months I definitely will contact you.

I spoke with a friend today who is going to buy a new Nikon D810 in the next couple of days....... I mentioned you guys but he lives in Calistoga CA and there is the problem of sales tax in Calif.

 

[Michael Thames]

exactly.
BIG stuff vs. GH2 = a lot of etat for supporting gear

Have a closer look once more; the GH2 is indeed the least worst shot of this 'darkroom' in my eyes

What, a $100,000 worth of lighting gear? LOL!

Please translate........ "the least worst shot of this darkroom" ........ maybe I've had too many margaritas this evening ...... but no comphrehedi.

 

[wuffer]

/sry for OT

jpblack remarked it was not a valid test. I would strongly agree. We knew what are these cameras are captable, but unfortunately they had no chance to show it in this circumstances.
Maybe I'm utterly wrong here, but to be honest none of the shots looks great in my eyes... some are not even 'good enough'. Take the suddenly appearing shadows for example, when the main actor block the light and maybe it's just me, but are they dramatic or irritating and unmotivated?
As said before, the smaller cams get much more light, around 1K in the foreground and additionell 4x4 Kinos.
http://www.zacuto.com/zvideo/RGCSO-TechnicalCameraDocumentation-V1.pdf


So in short, I would gave Mr Zacuto all my deep respect for this interesting PR coup.

/ OT

 

[cyork]

Subjective assessments aside, this shoot wasn't pretty low key. We (I was the grip on the first day) had an M18 for a couple shots bounced in through windows and we used it to paint the large oak tree at night. A Diva, Lowell... and a Cali Sunbounce for the outdoor shots. Nothing fancy at all really when you consider that people use these lights and bounces all the time for corp interview setups with lesser cams than the C100. I don't see anything wrong with the image the camera produces and I don't feel that every budget needs to throw large chunks of money at the camera budget when it's the lighting, story, talent, crew and pre production that will always make the largest difference. Seriously, once you get the project to the web, knowing the spread of amazing cameras and tech these days, what enormous difference are you really going to see? So, totally fair to critique the look and feel or the concept but it's ridiculous to say that a decent budget would eliminate this camera. If you want to hire an Alexa when a C100 would have been just as effective, that's the budget and profit loss you'll have to justify.

 

[DLD]

I think what the producer meant was that budgets should be commensurate, cameras included. No one would blame a small/no budget filmmaker for using a GH4 for his feature but, give him $200,000 to spend and he'll up the quality of his gear - from lights to cameras to actors (if they can be called "gear"). So, when making an ad for a $5,500 product, adjust the expenditures accordingly. As I recall, when GH4 came out, the accompanying video was a guy with his GH4 and his tripod shooting nature. That was it. In that sense, this ad ought to have been more minimal as well.

Now, if you forgive me, Francis and I will go spend a million bucks to shoot a vodka ad.

 

[cyork]

i guess I'm missing the reason why people think the C100 markii isn't worthy for 10-50k budgets when the final product is web delivery. What else was needed? We had a wireles client monitor, 12 stops of DR , same sensor as the higher end models and 60p. If the client requests a more expensive camera, great but there was nothing missing from the camera feature wise that we needed. 8bits for web delivery. It's been done for ages and nobody complained.

 

[DLD]

Well, had I been ordering a video with my deep (but rather empty) pockets in that price range, I'd want 4K Pro-Res 4:2:2 HQ at the very least and, of all available sub-$10K choices, I'd select A7s + Shogun/Q7+ combo for the IQ regardless of the work flow. My second choice would be either FS700+Q7 combo or, if there was not a lot of hand held work, BMD Ursa. But that's just my personal opinion. I like higher resolution, even if it is currently not fully deliverable - although, Vimeo is beginning to offer 4K streaming too now and YouTube has for a couple of years - and would re-allocate my budget accordingly.

And, by the way, I fully realize that people won Palm d'Or with a C300 shooting handheld in 1080p. But that was that director's choice. It's not mine.

 

[Doug_EX]

Come on! Can we stop asking ourselves if the C100 MkII was the "right" cam for the job?
it did a very good job. It was NOT a big budget shoot. Can we please stop this non sense?
There will always be a better camera, or better lighting equipment, better mic, better actor, etc. Should I not use my NTG3 on a particular shoot because the Sennheiser 416 exist? Will anyone hear the difference? Will it do the job?
Come on now, let's move on please!
I shot for National Television a few weeks ago with my C100 (AVCHD) and no one complained. They were quite impressed with the footage to say the truth.

 

[sonofaresiii]

Are we still doing this? This whole thing is amusing. Everyone (almost everyone) is agreeing that the final product looks great, so I guess those few saying this was the wrong camera for the job even though it looks good are just wanting to burn money for the sake of burning it.

And then you have the one guy who thinks this is amateur hour because someone cast a shadow somewhere...