Canon C500 to support 4k RAW!!!

[Emanuel]

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.

That's exactly my thoughts when read it. I even think he was just being nice with the guy who pronounced such silly remark. OTOH aside the fact I am both Canon and RED customer, I am wondering about the background of Nuno Dias once he is located where I have a branch of my business. And Portugal is a quite small market where everyone knows everyone in this craft.

 

[gecko2010]

Analog Vs a digital sample.....One is just a representation of the other.... We are not far off digitally controlled analog systems..organic sensors etc where what is appeasing naturally to the eye is quantifiable in a two state binary acquisition..its like the question what is ART... A Representation True ? maybe...a true genius will use what he/she has and collaborate with the floors if you will and turn them into a fitting character trait.

 

[Jay Birch]

I am wondering about the background of Nuno Dias once he is located where I have a branch of my business. And Portugal is a quite small market where everyone knows everyone in this craft.

Don't forget though... Not everyone on DVXuser is a film maker ;-)

Image acquisition spreads across many industries these days.

 

[Emanuel]

Don't forget though... Not everyone on DVXuser is a film maker ;-)

Image acquisition spreads across many industries these days.

True and reason why I am still wondering... I wouldn't surprise myself to have to listen this from someone outside the film world when I came myself from a film background. Fair enough, isn't it?

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.

LOL Your posts are a must! If there is a model of accurate overview on the facts, here is, yours

Anyway, take a look:
http://www.filmconvert.com/
http://cinegrain.com/media/

 

[Graemsay]

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).

Surely someone will be complaining about the lack of grain. :smile:

I agree about Mirror, Mirror, which looks absolutely gorgeous apart from a couple of obvious CGI shots. I suspect that's down to a crew who knows what they're doing, and a very good art and costume team.

I think that far too many people get caught up in the whole 24 fps is sacred, and shallow depth of field thing. It's almost as though an art form is being defined by quirks of the tools, rather than what is really important.

As for the C500, it looks like a nice piece of kit. I like the compact form factor of the C300, and this looks like it's slightly deeper version of that chassis. Though I wish that manufacturers would realise that they could fit a 2.5" drive bay rather than external recorders, and get rid of the need for another box.

 

[Nuno Dias]

I am wondering about the background of Nuno Dias once he is located where I have a branch of my business. And Portugal is a quite small market where everyone knows everyone in this craft.

Emanuel, I've been shooting TV commercials for ten years now, have had short films all around the world, winning various festivals from Hollywood, New York, London, Canada, etc... is that ok with you? And what do you have to show for yourself? That's right, not everyone here is a film maker, that's why people don't understand what a cinematic image is!

That Fellini comment, could go all the way to a video camera you can buy in Wallmart, silly analogy...

Yes, Red is a video camera with a great (if not the best) specs around, but as its known in our business; 'its the best of the worst cameras'... so true. Its a video camera in the true sense of the word, you have to really struggle to make it look cinematic, i.e, look good in terms of what we as an audience respond to being a cinematic image. Don't get philosophical about it, because no one is shooting cinema with high end video cameras, care to guess why...?

 

[VGurcu]

Don't get philosophical about it, because no one is shooting cinema with high end video cameras, care to guess why...?

I lost you there...I think a true filmmaker no longer cares about the physical realities of the medium. Thats is partly why in the last decade some filmmakers(ahead of their time) has proven again and again it is not the camera, but the FILM(movie) itself that counts. 'Dancer in the Dark' would have been just as powerful had it been shot on 35 mm film instead of Sony PD150.

Having sad that a great film I have seen recently seen turns out to be shot on RED.(just found that out today, it was so powerful that I never cared about its technical aspect) The film is 'Certified Copy' Iranian filmmaker Kiorastami's first feature shot in Europe with a big name attached. (Juliette Binoche)
Here is his opinion:

AVC: With the exception of your segment in the anthology film Tickets, you’ve essentially given up film for shooting on digital video. But with Certified Copy, you used the RED camera, which has a look much closer to film. How did that affect the process for you?
AK: You’re referring to the last 10 years. I have received the digital camera as a blessing. It has really changed my life as a filmmaker, because I don’t use my camera anymore as a camera. I don’t feel it as a camera. I feel it as a friend, as something that doesn’t make an impression on people, that doesn’t make them feel uncomfortable, and that is completely forgotten in my way of approaching life and people and film. So the digital camera has given me total freedom and a different way of filming. This time, with the RED, I didn’t have this impression at all. I felt that it was as heavy as a film camera. Having this great crew, with the DP and his assistants, I found it making as much of an impression as a very big film camera. I didn’t relate to it as much. I remember avoiding it during the shooting rather than paying attention to it. It was there, I had to deal with it, but I didn’t create any kind of relation with it. I’m still very grateful to digital cameras in general, but I didn’t have this feeling with the RED one.

Read the rest here:
http://www.avclub.com/articles/abbas-kiarostami,53269/

Essentially if you are not gonna be philosophical about it perhaps it is best you keep shooting commercials.

EDIT:First sentence didn't sound right, should have said: 'I think a true filmmaker doesn't focus on a single aspect of the physical realities of the medium.

 

[maarek]

Emanuel, I've been shooting TV commercials for ten years now, have had short films all around the world, winning various festivals from Hollywood, New York, London, Canada, etc... is that ok with you? And what do you have to show for yourself? That's right, not everyone here is a film maker, that's why people don't understand what a cinematic image is!

What a load of rubbish. You have one short film on IMDB. That's like...wow. No one should be bowing before you based on that. If you don't like RED, go ahead and don't like it. But don't presume to be the "knowledge" on cinematic quality or commercials. Because you are not. You are a small commercial director. There are way better directors than you out there who shoot with the RED and are very pleased and creating cinematic films outrivalling yours. So stop that "I'm the greatest director in this forum"-stuff when you spew those opinions.

 

[cowpunk52]

What a load of rubbish. You have one short film on IMDB. That's like...wow.

Some of the most experienced directors I know have absolutely nothing on IMDB. IMDB is not a professional reference site, and should never be used as such. It's an entertainment info site owned by Amazon, for goodness sake.

 

[Nuno Dias]

Listen, Kiorasmati has been shooting films on small video cameras for a while now. Do the films look good? No, they look rubbish. Are his films good? Its a matter of taste, I would personally rather have a rabid dog chew on my neck till I bleed to death rather than seeing another one of his films...

If Kiorasmati or Lars Von Trier were considered the pinnacle of film making, I would certainly rather turn to fundamental terrorist than being a film maker...

Again, I not only shoot commercials for a living, but I also shoot fiction and documentaries. So I care to note that I'm not a forum junkie with just an opinion... I actually earn my living doing this, what about you...? Now, VGurcu, I'm not sure if you're tying to be smart or just insulting, by suggesting I should keep to commercials rather than being philosophical about these things, which I think is a typical view of non-film makers, people that just have an opinion and don't actually shoot films... having an opinion is easy, anyone can have one, but putting your money where your mouth is, is a whole different ball game...

And yes, Mr VGurcu, the they you're able to shoot a commercial I'll actually give you some respect, till then I'll just choose to think very little of you... Your last comment was very unnecessary.

 

[Nuno Dias]

What a load of rubbish. You have one short film on IMDB. That's like...wow. No one should be bowing before you based on that. If you don't like RED, go ahead and don't like it. But don't presume to be the "knowledge" on cinematic quality or commercials. Because you are not. You are a small commercial director. There are way better directors than you out there who shoot with the RED and are very pleased and creating cinematic films outrivalling yours. So stop that "I'm the greatest director in this forum"-stuff when you spew those opinions.

Show us what you got then!

 

[cowpunk52]

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).

There has always been and always will be a fascination with nostalgia - mostly because of the feeling it invokes. And that isn't a "wrong" aesthetic. After all, isn't invoking a feeling the primary goal of all storytelling? Images that are too clean can feel clinical & 'heartless.' I'm not saying adding grain is right for all cases, but neither are perfectly clean frames, either. No single aesthetic should ever be universally embraced as the "best," otherwise you're limiting creative potential and imagination. Many digital stills photographers are still trying to find ways to emulate old film stocks. There are countless programs, plugins & tutorials that people pay good money to recreate vintage looks. This will never stop happening.

Who knows, in twenty years we may be shelling out for the latest "rolling shutter plugin" and "fixed pattern noise" filter! :smile:

 

[Nuno Dias]

Instead of going back and edit my posts, I'll just apologize for unintentionally diverting this good thread. I'll shut up now.

 

[Nuno Dias]

There has always been and always will be a fascination with nostalgia - mostly because of the feeling it invokes. And that isn't a "wrong" aesthetic. After all, isn't invoking a feeling the primary goal of all storytelling? Images that are too clean can feel clinical & 'heartless.' I'm not saying adding grain is right for all cases, but neither are perfectly clean frames, either. No single aesthetic should ever be universally embraced as the "best," otherwise you're limiting creative potential and imagination. Many digital stills photographers are still trying to find ways to emulate old film stocks. There are countless programs, plugins & tutorials that people pay good money to recreate vintage looks. This will never stop happening.

Exactly. Somehow, someone in a lab somewhere decided that clean, pristine and immaculate imaging is the 'best' way to go. But is it? Like you said, there's a whole business on making these highly clean digital images look more organic, more 'film like' if you will. Surely that should tells us something about this new notion that cinema is all about big k's and super clean images...

 

[Emanuel]

Emanuel, I've been shooting TV commercials for ten years now, have had short films all around the world, winning various festivals from Hollywood, New York, London, Canada, etc... is that ok with you?

It should be OK to you, not for me. I have nothing to do with it. Against, sure not either. Kudos, in this case. But sincerely, your name doesn't say nothing to me. Hope to be able to say the opposite after knowing who you are. The only ref I have closer to, it is someone with your 1st name and another one with your surname but they are two of the directors of the most important short film festival in our native born country (I suppose) where I worked with, 18 years ago when I still was a young man then.

And what do you have to show for yourself?

To you, here? Take a look in my signature. May the future show you more. Stay tuned.

That's right, not everyone here is a film maker, that's why people don't understand what a cinematic image is!

That Fellini comment, could go all the way to a video camera you can buy in Wallmart, silly analogy...

Yes, Red is a video camera with a great (if not the best) specs around, but as its known in our business; 'its the best of the worst cameras'... so true. Its a video camera in the true sense of the word, you have to really struggle to make it look cinematic, i.e, look good in terms of what we as an audience respond to being a cinematic image. Don't get philosophical about it, because no one is shooting cinema with high end video cameras, care to guess why...?

Who has been tolding you that? Tony from AIP? Because when I started I easily understood there are a lot of people in that small world where you are located to pretend to teach others with no absolute key about what they're trying to. I'm sorry to say it. As well, regarding silly comments about RED. To claim to be a 'filmmaker' unfortunately doesn't serve as credential enough, I'm afraid to say. I still was in Lisbon film school when the Conservatory transferred to Amadora where I could understand the outdating of the 'filmmakers' resident there, my teachers. I just had finished an HDCAM workshop with the same people who later have hired the services of my partners nowadays to be their official consultants today. It was 2001, I was ending my 3 years (+1) graduation in editing/directing. A year before to have earned the only job available in a national application for a public institution as professor there, in these fields of imaging. And a year later, not satisfied yet with my own learning (never I am, reason enough you won't ever see me commenting cameras lightheartedly), I came back to school for more education (post graduation) in directing, along my pre-existent background you can check it out by your own in the signature provided below. You?

 

[dustylense]

Oh snap, a shooters dual! Emanuel, while Nuno is quite vocal, I would not question his work. I did that once and I walked away with my tail between my legs. Not that hard to find his work online. However, yours is. Now, back to the topic of Canon 4K. Lookout RED....

 

[Nuno Dias]

Who has been tolding you that? Tony from AIP? Because when I started I easily understood there are a lot of people in that small world where you are located to pretend to teach others with no absolute key about what they're trying to. I'm sorry to say it. As well, regarding silly comments about RED. To claim to be a 'filmmaker' unfortunately doesn't serve as credential enough, I'm afraid to say. I still was in Lisbon film school when the Conservatory transferred to Amadora where I could understand the outdating of the 'filmmakers' resident there, my teachers. I just had finished an HDCAM workshop with the same people who later have hired the services of my partners nowadays to be their official consultants today. It was 2001, I was ending my 3 years (+1) graduation in editing/directing. A year before to have earned the only job available in a national application for a public institution as professor there, in these fields of imaging. And a year later, not satisfied yet with my own learning (never I am, reason enough you won't ever see me commenting cameras lightheartedly), I came back to school for more education of post graduation in directing. You?

So basically, you're not a filmmaker!

I did three years of film school in England, that's it. Then I cut my teeth shooting commercials, highly visual pieces of narrative that cost too much money to make... and responsibility. And no, I have no affiliations with AIP, Red is just everyone's nightmare here. Everyone loves the Alexa, and even the F35, but not the Red. A lot of people use it, because its the cheapest camera to rent, (next to the 5D), but not because they love shooting with it. In fact, I have had agencies tell me, not to budget a Red. Anything else, but not a Red! Sure, a good DP will make the Red look good, but when a simple white t-shirt is a problem for peaking whites, you know this camera is best stay in the rental house...

I was recently grading some Alexa footage shot 16bit Raw and I have never seen anything quite like it, believe me, I've shot a lot with Red, and not matter what all you fanboys say, its the best of the worst cameras! I hope their new Dragon sensor, can once and for all save their asses...

I'm not a DP, I'm a director. And I feel that sometimes you have to tell some of the people here that they best stay grounded to reality...

 

[Nuno Dias]

Oh snap, a shooters dual! Emanuel, while Nuno is quite vocal, I would not question his work. I did that once and I walked away with my tail between my legs. Not that hard to find his work online. However, yours is. Now, back to the topic of Canon 4K. Lookout RED....

dustylense, its sad that when you voice an opinion on Red, people will always attack you by making you feel like you're not permitted to have that opinion, that you don't know what you're talking about, that you can't shoot films, that you're a technical fallacy... when in reality, those are the people that are at home, in front of their computers and that's all they have, they don't shoot for a salary and most times, their experience with other cameras is non existent.

So, what do these people want me to say? Should I hide the fact that I shoot for a living? But if they only knew how easy it is to see through them...

But, yes, lets get back on thread. I love this new C500 already...

 

[colormate]

lol.. this guy, "emanuel".. i thought he got banned ages ago when jarred busted him running like 4 or 5 different user profiles on here, often arguing between himself and completely ruining any attempt of serious discussion. (seems he's still switching between perfect english and complete incoherent, misspelled ramblings though, and apparently switching nationalities as well. apart from portuguese, he's been at least italian and spanish too…) lol. anyways, i agree with shane about the c300, but maybe the 500 won't look as much videoish. to me, "cinematic" is the look i'm used to from the movies (films shot on film aka celluloid) and that's a different look from stuff like the reality shows, corporate productions, wedding stuff and some documentaries, shot on video. film has that look of something "not real", something not quite natural and realistic, it makes things and people look "special" and that helps when you want the audience to feel like they're watching something "out of this world". video doesn't do that to me, if i see a "film" shot on video, i can almost feel the whole crew standing behind the camera, i know the actors are just faking it and it doesn't compare to the "magical world of cinema". the only digital camera i have used so far that resembles the look and feel of celluloid is the alexa. red, not so much. it's clean and all, but the image screams video, no matter how you grade it. i'm excited about the c500 and "raw" though, i kinda love canon for some reason.

 

[Emanuel]

Oh snap, a shooters dual! Emanuel, while Nuno is quite vocal, I would not question his work. I did that once and I walked away with my tail between my legs. Not that hard to find his work online. However, yours is. Now, back to the topic of Canon 4K. Lookout RED....

So basically, you're not a filmmaker!

I did three years of film school in England, that's it. Then I cut my teeth shooting commercials, highly visual pieces of narrative that cost too much money to make... and responsibility. And no, I have no affiliations with AIP, Red is just everyone's nightmare here. Everyone loves the Alexa, and even the F35, but not the Red. A lot of people use it, because its the cheapest camera to rent, (next to the 5D), but not because they love shooting with it. In fact, I have had agencies tell me, not to budget a Red. Anything else, but not a Red! Sure, a good DP will make the Red look good, but when a simple white t-shirt is a problem for peaking whites, you know this camera is best stay in the rental house...

I was recently grading some Alexa footage shot 16bit Raw and I have never seen anything quite like it, believe me, I've shot a lot with Red, and not matter what all you fanboys say, its the best of the worst cameras! I hope their new Dragon sensor, can once and for all save their asses...

I'm not a DP, I'm a director. And I feel that sometimes you have to tell some of the people here that they best stay grounded to reality...

You are quick to shoot assumptions, over RED, over me, and so on... Did I tell you I was not? First off, you won't see me here to promote myself as filmmaker. But something I can tell you, the first feature I had the pleasure to participate as co-producer left the Venice Film Festival awarded more than once. Lars von Trier you already mentioned the page before, he heard someone tell him about me when you probably had no clue about his work, I'd dare to bet.

I do it in the right place. Not in a forum of technology. More or less like Barry Green. Does it matter his career as producer in these forums? And as Christopher (dustylense) pointed out, it will be hard to find any trace of me beyond my baptism name (I own two but as portuguese, you won't strange the fact) and the first letter of my surname. My choice for online business card because of a lot of personal reasons, not addressed to this discussion. Here, I present myself as you see. But this doesn't make me a non-filmmaker. Filmmaking is done @set, prepping and even earlier from fundraising cabinets (yes!) and on and on. I even did a filmmaking school you already know which (you are in advantage, I don't know yours I'm sorry if I disappoint you if it is the case.

Please, do not try to bring Christopher and yourself for some kind of silly discussion between pro and against RED. I never read Christopher to be attacked here if he doesn't like Jarred's company. But I see you to piss in one of his carpets. Do I see any censorship from anyone over such attitude? Nope. Only others like me who see the tremendous untrue you come to spread in these pages. Like you could be an authority as someone already said here, nobody granted to you.

The same for the unwelcome approach trying to put RED and Canon products in certain kind of dispute (I use both brands ) ones against each others. It is not proper of someone who comes here to present himself as filmmaker. I guess, facts and deeds speak higher than words written in the cybersphere.

In something you are accurate with no doubts at all, let's be on topic.

Last but not least, RED is not a punching bag and your comments on the camera are very much uneducated, unproper of a director. The same for any sort of "I don't like redusers" attitude. It is not even smart, decent or fair. No more no less.