Canon C500 to support 4k RAW!!!

refund for same crappy plot?

refund for same crappy plot?

Barrera/Berg, is that you? Because from times to times, you come to harass me with HATE PMs only because you had some discussion with someone connected with me and you didn't like the experience (for some reason, the level of english was not the same, got it or need a pic?!)

C'mon, don't tell me you are the only (again) guy with spanish name who cowardly attacked me in that famous thread on cinematography.com where not even the usual RED haters there applied your 60% rate of the total of your 5 posts in that forum in successive ad hominem attacks -- same user name on scarletuser, same low number of posts (3), coincidently. Barrera, isn't it? ;) Reported then to Jason BTW. When the whole story was fully cleared up, succeeding the reduser episode (not here) where other accounts were banned, part of them actually (not all, so not mine), either here or over reduser, as you see.

Gosh, you echo the same nonsense of certain user from cinematography.com forums (aka Jim Murdoch after having ripped off real ID from a peaceful scottish citizen with same name). In his version, I would be Jim Jannard himself in disguise. Phew!...

Needless to say that me, the real Emanuel, I am not the person who firstly had the displeasure to have met you online. I've entered later and by your hand. Sigh!

And I am even able to say I had the proud to have David Mullen or Jarred Land in due course to rescue me out! : D (the 1st in my defence in that thread on real-names-policy forums @cinematography.com, the latter one in his RU home).

Sorry to not be able to check your disappointment but in person ;) Not hidden from 'colormate' account as usual, when the other one of yours, the clean one, you forgot to log in. If it is the case... I know nothing. Only what people who I work with, told me about you.

At least, I post here, on reduser, cinematography.com, cinema5D forums and so on, under my own real name FROM DAY ONE.
I see, Nuno Dias here too (to whom I've been trading IDs and you send your post with your poison always ridiculously addressed to the same recipient, with no key what you're doing, this I know!).

Your ID please? Or since you moved in from Scandinavia to NY (in 'colormate' account 'cause on cinematography.com you still are in LA), you forgot?

Old stories, I know, old and long stories... But when you get the wrong log-in the same amnesic few-times-forums-account, nothing else is necessary to say.

Take care... pity with so short, though scarce online notes, you don't arrange time for a meeting but somewhere out there, not behind the classic mouse : D

(11 posts gives less than 2 posts per year! Well, once you still have 5 posts on cinematography.com 4 years later, so much posting over here can hurt your spine ;)


colormate said:
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.
Click to expand...

<PS:>

You thought... (you wrote) In the middle of all this crap of yours mixing up other people IDs related to me, something you are still confused to get. There are different nationalities here, yes. I am not the only portuguese among them but I usually live in Rome too. What's your beef with it?!

On the leftover, the usual blah blah anti-RED & redusers you bring from lurking on cinematography.com forums. Just sad to read it unfairly reproduced on these boards. Go figure if after having trouble to convince my people to be part of the RED family, they start to think «RED screams video» like you claim only because you said so : D
 
Last edited:
I don't want to have to go through and spend the time to house-clean this thread, so can you guys take it somewhere else....
 
You are fully right, Jason. As you know a couple of years ago when I reported to you one of his hate PMs (the only ones I've EVER received on dvxuser), the guy is still in action.
 
Good heavens people. Nuno is spot-on about RED's current shortcomings. And spot on that hopefully the Dragon sensor will fix things.

How is this relevant to this thread?

Well - in this new round of competition between RED / Arri / Sony / Canon / Panasonic / Aaton / etc... now we are hopefully starting to look at things like color rendition and workflow instead of just specs. Intense competition - and cameras like the C500 add to it - is awesome and is what will push digital imaging to get to the richness of film.

Canon C500 should be interesting since it will take the C300 sensor (which seems quite nice) and fit it with a proper electronics back-end to get the most out of it.

As for everyone complaining about C300 not unlocking the full potential of the sensor... it's clear that the electronics for that aren't finished yet even now - as the C500 hasn't been released yet. Remember how long it took RED to get the ASICs right for Epic? Very long delays. Likely Canon will have everything in place in a few months - but if it doesn't, it will just delay the C500 introduction and continue to sell C300s until it gets the C500 chips right.

Anyway, I have a relevant technical question for you guys:

According to this:
http://cweb.canon.jp/cinema-eos/lineup/digitalcamera/c500/index.html

The 120fps mode is not 4096x2160 but rather 4096x1080.

So I'm guessing there will be quite a bit of aliasing at 120fps 4K?

Unless it is doing something really smart like reading out the two green pixels, averaging them, and then sending the average of the green values as the "RAW" green value?

Anyone can read Japanese and confirm this?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
It's just opinions emanuel. Ya take them for what they are worth. RED is RED and Canon is Canon. I'm glad there is RED, they have pushed other companies to break suit and develop better cameras. But RED fanboys better tread lightly, as Canon, SOny, and Panny have huge resource. It's game on now. RED already proved it can't develop or compete in a prosumer market, so they just say stuff like "we are for professionals". How about saying, "We failed while we hooked you for 3 years, and figured out that we should stay in a professional market".
But, when somebody with a body of work gives his experience of a certain camera like the Epic, maybe just take it as a "Hmmm, interesting. Wonder why he feels that way"? It's a ton easier than combating him on say his work or your love for a camera or company. Speaking of REDusers attitude, go read some posts over there and you would think that there are no other cameras that should be used. I personally think the Alexa looks far better than RED in every way. But thats my opinion. But you mention another camera on REDuser, and you get banned. They are making China seem more open to opinion and discussion.

RED best step up. Their remarks about other companies is like the Japanese hitting Pearl Harbor. Meaning, they have awaken the sleeping giants in Canon, Sony, and hopefully Panny. We already have seen that Canon is now committed to the cinema market. RED better have lots of ammo for their bazookas because Canons Navy is coming and fully committed.

Fact is fact. Canon is a serious player now for the BIG BOYS.
Now, If anyone has played around with Canons MXF 422 8bit 50 and seen what it's capable of, I can't wait to see CanonRAW.
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
It's just opinions emanuel. Ya take them for what they are worth. RED is RED and Canon is Canon. I'm glad there is RED, they have pushed other companies to break suit and develop better cameras. But RED fanboys better tread lightly, as Canon, SOny, and Panny have huge resource. It's game on now. RED already proved it can't develop or compete in a prosumer market, so they just say stuff like "we are for professionals". How about saying, "We failed while we hooked you for 3 years, and figured out that we should stay in a professional market".
But, when somebody with a body of work gives his experience of a certain camera like the Epic, maybe just take it as a "Hmmm, interesting. Wonder why he feels that way"? It's a ton easier than combating him on say his work or your love for a camera or company. Speaking of REDusers attitude, go read some posts over there and you would think that there are no other cameras that should be used. I personally think the Alexa looks far better than RED in every way. But thats my opinion. But you mention another camera on REDuser, and you get banned. They are making China seem more open to opinion and discussion.

RED best step up. Their remarks about other companies is like the Japanese hitting Pearl Harbor. Meaning, they have awaken the sleeping giants in Canon, Sony, and hopefully Panny. We already have seen that Canon is now committed to the cinema market. RED better have lots of ammo for their bazookas because Canons Navy is coming and fully committed.

Fact is fact. Canon is a serious player now for the BIG BOYS.
Now, If anyone has played around with Canons MXF 422 8bit 50 and seen what it's capable of, I can't wait to see CanonRAW.
Click to expand...

Spot on!
 
Nuno Dias said:
Please specify how any of my comments on Red are uneducated and unproper?
Click to expand...
Sent you PM.

As you see, if it is true I've done good friends on dvxuser (one of them the owner of this site), having the pleasure to personally meet and do business with a few of them, the fact is there's also some hater who for some reason, after years of silence, likes to pop up as referred above-posted.

I am not even sure why, once the only thing I know that he had some headbutt with some people connected with me. Who told me that his real name is Berg and is located in Sweden. I don't even know if this is accurate, as well, I know nothing else. And here I am paying the beans ('favas' in portuguese, you understand the meaning). So you can now easily understand why we should care about our online ID. True ID, but we should be careful with the information we post online, our personal information included.

I guess you follow what I want to say quite well :-)
 
I'm happy with my camera choices, and the fact that I no longer have to worry about what is coming out next and which camera has better this and that as all of my needs in a camera are taken care of at this point, now all I care about is content, jobs and fun!

To be honest this statement would apply for just about any camera out there these days of a certain quality, pick what suits you best and get shooting, slinging mud around at each other based on personal opinions and choices doesn't really make sense to me.

What are we doing here playing keeping up with the Cameron's, "I just got the new ___ which is better than your ____ so ____ " or are we trying to find the best tool to suit our needs, and along the way give as unbiased an opinion of these cameras based on hands on knowledge so that we can help our fellow filmmakers decide what camera is best for them.

Meh have fun!
 
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...

This is an opinion. I know because mine is different.

A healthy percentage of negative opinions of / results with Red footage are the result of unfamiliarity with RAW workflow. This one sounds like a prime candidate for that problem.

BTW, it's hard to call that user error when it's 98% Canon/Sony/et al's fault. RAW should've been introduced to the motion picture world at least half a decade ago (and that's giving them all the benefit of the doubt that the technology to do so didn't exist until Red One came along, something I doubt).

dustylense said:
RED already proved it can't develop or compete in a prosumer market, so they just say stuff like "we are for professionals". How about saying, "We failed while we hooked you for 3 years, and figured out that we should stay in a professional market".
Click to expand...

NAILED IT.

However,

dustylense said:
I'm glad there is RED, they have pushed other companies to break suit and develop better cameras. But RED fanboys better tread lightly, as Canon, SOny, and Panny have huge resources.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you here. 6 or 7 years after Red One and Canon is just getting around to announcing RAW recording to an offboard recorder Frankenrig.

I have no doubt about what they could do if they took the task seriously. But they obviously don't yet.

My theory is that the Japanese are comfortable with their mastery of iteration and no Japanese company is going to try anything uproven or "radical" that diverges from their little multi-decade roadmap of incremental upgrades unless they're absoultely forced kicking and screaming. My theory is that Red doesn't have the market penetration to really do that (I'll add another "yet" here).
 
Last edited:
There are a few things you can always count on at DVXUser.

1/ Jason is always busy, he works very hard to maintain this forum amongst other things.
2/ We like a community that doesnt prostulate - but accepts everyone has an opinion. Those opinions are always welcome, however when someone is attacked for having a differing opinion it will not be tolerated.
3/ Members arguing on the forum, will not be accepted.
4/ There are a number of mods here who are ALL volunteers, we aim to keep the ship happy and calm for the MAJORITY of members.
5/ The mods here will take action in light of the above.

No warnings from here on: Read the thread title. Discuss. If youve got nothing to add, or feel the need to post because someone does perceive the same world you do... MOVE ON>
 
Indeed, Noel. As posted, same thought here. Otherwise, that quasi 4:1 ratio doesn't make any sense.
 
What strikes me is just how fast things are changing right now. There are a lot of people dropping $10K or $20K on something like a Scarlet, F3, C300, only for it to be rendered obsolete within twelve months. Looks like Moore's Law has gone to Hollywood.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that spending money on decent glass with a PL mount, and then renting a camera makes a lot more sense. And that seems to be the opposite of how everyone else is doing things, since they're putting relatively cheap Nikon or Canon photographic lenses on an expensive body. It seems that the investment is going into the ephemeral, rather than what should last many years.

Incidentally, my older brother was working on a low budget film in Hollywood a few months back, which was shot on a couple of RED Ones. They were unreliable, frequently overheated (the low tech fix was icepacks), and had noisy fans that were picked up on microphones. After the experience, he doesn't rate them particularly highly, so I can see where Nuno's coming from.

He also said that the footage it produced was beautiful.
 
Graemsay said:
There are a lot of people dropping $10K or $20K on something like a Scarlet, F3, C300, only for it to be rendered obsolete within twelve months.
Click to expand...

I think it's a little premature to be calling the Scarlet, F3, C300 obsolete in 12 months, when likely these cameras will still be in use 2-3 years from now.
( heck, this afternoon I watched a corporate commercial being shot at the main Chapters bookstore here in Toronto with a Canon XH-A1s HDV camera using MiniDV tape! )

Yes, the Scarlet, F3, C300 likely won't be state of the art in 12-18 months, but this is nothing new to the pro video market, something better always comes along...
 
yoclay said:
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.
Click to expand...
You've got your history of photography a bit muddled. In a charming manner, but still, muddled.
100years ago the first photo exhibit was held in a gllery that was run by the impressionists. Turn of the 20th century photography and painting evolved together. The pointelist colorists were rubbing elbows with the first color photographers, sharing ideas etc. 100 years ago photos were not so grainy. 40 years ago (Vietnam), they started to be grainy. F64 (Edward Weston, Ansel Adams) preceded Vietnam so you had infinite focus plus 8X10 cameras = super fine grain... then in Vietnam Tri-X pan was introduced so Photojournalists could shoot with Nikons in the battlefield.
BTW, I love adding grain to my stills and video and I do watch TV on an old Trinitron CRT ;)
 
Zephyrnoid said:
You've got your history of photography a bit muddled. In a charming manner, but still, muddled.
100years ago the first photo exhibit was held in a gllery that was run by the impressionists. Turn of the 20th century photography and painting evolved together. The pointelist colorists were rubbing elbows with the first color photographers, sharing ideas etc. 100 years ago photos were not so grainy. 40 years ago (Vietnam), they started to be grainy. F64 (Edward Weston, Ansel Adams) preceded Vietnam so you had infinite focus plus 8X10 cameras = super fine grain... then in Vietnam Tri-X pan was introduced so Photojournalists could shoot with Nikons in the battlefield.
BTW, I love adding grain to my stills and video and I do watch TV on an old Trinitron CRT ;)
Click to expand...

Nope. Not muddled at all. I am not speaking about grain as a Pictorialist technique. (Though actually they liked that too). I am speaking about drybrush techniques and painting emulsion on canvas, in order to give it a more painterly feel. I am speaking about turn of the century photography from the likes of Gertrude Kasebier. As you undoubtedly know, F64 not only preceeded Vietnam, it preceeded the Second World War as well. It was a direct response to this kind of Pictorialist work in the early part of the century and it started in the 1920's as a very conscious reaction to Pictorialist thinking. They felt it was important to embrace photograhy's own inherent qualities as an art rather than trying to be something it was not.

The first photo exhibition was not held by Impressionists 100 years ago. It was held more than 150 years ago by the Royal Photographic Society of London (1858), which actually predates Impressionism. Undoubtedly there were others before this, but this is the first one officially held by a museum.

I was referring to adding grain in the context of modern video as a way to try to emulate the look of film, to somehow legitimize it a way that it does not need to be. Thus the analagous reference to Pictorialism.

Yes, I too enjoy expressive technique, but most people I think probably add grain today so that they can feel more like filmmakers and as a reflex to try and cover up what they feel are video like artifacts.

However, as far as I am concerned a fat lady in high heels, is still a fat lady in high heels.
 
Last edited:
bruceallen said:
Anyway, I have a relevant technical question for you guys:

According to this:
http://cweb.canon.jp/cinema-eos/lineup/digitalcamera/c500/index.html

The 120fps mode is not 4096x2160 but rather 4096x1080.
Click to expand...

I have to imagine that's a typo. How fast a sensor can switch between rows of pixels is a limiting factor for framerates, so a different aspect ratio with less rows (say 4096x1700 2.4:1) at the top framerates wouldn't be unbelievable. Epic does it. But no way is it 4:1, that'd be useless.
 
Lee Saxon said:
I have to imagine that's a typo. How fast a sensor can switch between rows of pixels is a limiting factor for framerates, so a different aspect ratio with less rows (say 4096x1700 2.4:1) at the top framerates wouldn't be unbelievable. Epic does it. But no way is it 4:1, that'd be useless.
Click to expand...
Yet that's how Sony does 1080p at 480 and 960 fps with the FS700.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top