Canon C500 to support 4k RAW!!!

Samuel H said:
only with external recorder, and at 50% higher price than a fully kitted Scarlett
Click to expand...

This is competing with Epic not Scarlet. Look at the specs.

What interests me about this camera is the scale down to 2K 4:4:4 .... This is something RED desperatly needs, 2K/1080p is still hugely relevant, no matter what they say. Why would I shoot a cat food ad in 4K? Why do I need to future proof something that has a 3 month lifespan?
 
On second thought - it was brought to my attention that the 'other' thread is mainly devoted to discussion of the announced Canon Cinema EOS DSLR.
So let's keep this thread devoted to the C500.

Thanks.
 
Lee Saxon said:
While it's priced to compete with Epic (no way it's only $25k), feature-wise it competes with Scarlet (and doesn't win). That's Canon's problem.
Click to expand...

the only problem there is that Red still looks like video, no matter what they do. Whilst Canon sensors deliver a true cinematic image.
 
Nuno Dias said:
the only problem there is that Red still looks like video, no matter what they do. Whilst Canon sensors deliver a true cinematic image.
Click to expand...

Of course...what decides what is a cinematic image? Or do you mean an image that replicates film? Or do you mean an image that you like?

In the case of the former, a cinematic image has been a low resolution off-speed silent film, an on-speed black and white talkie, a Technicolor dream, a VistaVision experience, a sudden 16mm success, a color film produced on highly crafted chemically precise low-grain stock, a Hi-8 horror film, a movie shot on film but hugely digitally enhanced, a 1080p vision, and a 4k future...among many others. What is cinematic is more a product of the times and of the choice of the artist than anything else - least, perhaps, camera technology. I believe that Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and Peter Jackson all seem perfectly capable of creating a very cinematic images using RED equipment.

In the case of the second, I think people have largely forgotten what film looks like. In fact, I don't think that many people would want their footage to actually look like raw film; film prior to being de-noised, sharpened, color corrected, stabilized, and otherwise electronically perfected. I certainly haven't seen footage come out of a Canon camera that looks like it was shot on film. Chalk it up to fixed pattern noise, Bayer CMOS color inaccuracy, poor resolution, aliasing and moire, compression, or myriad other factors. It's not film. And I honestly don't think it should try to be; we've already got film to shoot.

Lastly, personal preference. As has been stated so many times, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Shoot what you like. Let others make their choices. And enjoy the Digital Rennaissance of filmmaking.

For the record, I think the Canon cameras can put out some breathtaking images. A lot of that depends on what is in front of the lens and who is behind the camera. But the camera can definitely do it. I'm very interested - now that Canon is properly competing with RED, Arri, and Sony in the cinema production arena - both how they will fare in business and how their cameras and lenses will be used by filmmakers.
 
The whole 'cinematic; look is really wearing me out, here's why.
I traveled back in time and chatted with some of the renowned Directors of the past. They all told be the the same thing.
"We just wish our equipment and technology could reproduce the scene the way we see it in real time, crisp, smooth and lacking the momentary shadow of the projector's shutter gate."---Federico Fellini
In short, they told me they wanted VIDEO-like movies, just like a 4Kdownsampled to 1080P
Further. Whilst cinema noir is lovely as an effect, it does not depend on the trademark aspects of the so-called cinematic look for impact.
Further. The vast majority of money making cinematography is mundane stuff like TVC's, Unpublished Commercial Corporate, Hard Core documentary to mention but a few genre. From what I can tell in fact, slap a soft focus filter on your lens and you can be so romantic without having to reconfigure your whole capture ala Canon or Panasonic GH2 yada yada.
So can we stop with all the rubbish about cinematic texture and focus on cinema proper?
 
yoclay said:
Yes, but does this mean that there is no 4.4.4 at 4K, only 2K ?
Click to expand...
Of course. You can't get 4:4:4 4k out of a 4k sensor. Not possible. In a 4K sensor (with a Bayer pattern) you've got enough color samples to make a downconverted 2K with 4:4:4, or a de-bayered 3k image with a little better than 4:2:0. That's all there is, whether it's coming from Canon or Red or Sony's FS700 or any other single-sensor 4k chip.
 
Michael Olsen said:
Of course...what decides what is a cinematic image? Or do you mean an image that replicates film? Or do you mean an image that you like?
Click to expand...
Agreed wholeheartedly, what you like is what YOU like and doesn't make that the empirical definition of what is or isn't "cinematic". Interestingly, for those who follow Shane Hurlbut or care what he thinks, he dismissed the C300 as saying "It's a video camera and it looks like video." I happen to think that's an unfair characterization, but that's his take on it.

As has been stated so many times, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Shoot what you like. Let others make their choices.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It should be okay for other people to have differing opinions. If some like the look of one product or another, so be it, live and let live.
 
Well said Mr Olsen. You're preaching to a choir boy. I have no idea what film looks like anymore myself. Heck.....film doesn't look like film anymore. Nowadays film is so clean that if it wasn't for its superior dynamic range I would swear sometimes I'm watching something shot on a high end digital camera. Then again....there's always the Arri Alexa.

Me, I happen to like the pristine clean look of digital cinema. The other day while watching a movie in a theater with my kids I noticed something funny while sitting in the second row (yes...I always sit that close). There was absolutely none of the usual noise that I see when sitting that close up. None at all. It didn't take me out of the game at all....it looked perfect. The movie was "Mirror Mirror" starring Julia Roberts. Lo and behold after doing some investigation afterwards I found out the movie was shot on the Genesis camera (With some f35). I was really impressed. I asked myself afterwards..."would this have looked any better if it were shot on film?" I really don't think so. Then I asked myself "why are we trying to go backwards by making our digital captures look like old(er) technology. We should embrace everything digital aquisition has to offer (issues and all).
 
Lee Saxon said:
While it's priced to compete with Epic (no way it's only $25k), feature-wise it competes with Scarlet (and doesn't win). That's Canon's problem.
Click to expand...

The specs seem better than the Scarlet... 4K/60p and a lesser 4K/120p mode. It even beats Epic, in some respects. A 4:4:4 2K downscale mode (why do RED overlook this feature?). Better low light. Arguably better ergonomics.

It probably sits between Scarlet and Epic in terms of spec, on paper. It is certainly spec'd higher than Scarlet.

It is it's own camera though, with it's own set of pros and cons (like all cameras). I LOVE the form factor and IQ of the C300, this is a 12bit 4:4:4 C300 with 4K RAW too, plus overcranking. Seems like a winner to me. Well done Canon, brave and surprisinly agressive move.
 
Last edited:
Ian-T said:
I asked myself "why are we trying to go backwards by making our digital captures look like old(er) technology. We should embrace everything digital aquisition has to offer (issues and all).
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. I find it absurd that we are adding grain to video these days. That's like what the pictorialists were trying to do 100 years ago in order to make photography look more like painting. As if it could not be art otherwise. Along came F64 and the photography world was changed forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top