Canon Doesn't Think Consumer Cameras Should have Raw Video
- Thread starter Benjobe
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Just two weeks ago, a BTS guy brought a BMC + Speedbooster to a set, and it gave the Alexa a run for its money. I was surprised. Definitely has my interest. If I was shooting budget films, I may go with the BMC over anything Canon has. Canon has that comfortable 11+ stops DR. The BMC's extra 2? stops and higher bit rate is really nice, and gets closer to the Alexa/Red look than Canon.
But Canon is in another market, and when price is not an issue, it is surprising how different a solution looks.
I believe the SNL shorts (which I dislike) are shot on CineCanons. It looks like it to me anyways. Most people don't need more quality than that. And compared to all the cameras of the past, these new Sony's and Canon's are nice. It is too bad, Nikon isn't doing more with video. I would love to have those sensors available.
When a BMC can be bought for $995 and $1995, it is a wonder why anyone wanting to make a film would choose a Canon instead, and lose the dynamic range and bit rate.
I tend to dislike the bit rate issues and 8bit banding more than the 11.5 stops DR. Even though it would be nice to have 14stops, I would rather have 10bits or more to work with. I think the C100 adds noise to breakup the banding. Anyway, BMC now has my attention again, they had a rough start, and so that prevented me from going that route, initially. Plus, I am a low light lover, so that limits my options to a few cameras, and BMC is not on that list. Though most shooting environments have no need for lowlight.
I think all cameras should be getting up to the 13.5 stops DR. I love the HDR on cellphones. My brother has some fantastic instagram pics that are only possible because of that. He is not even a pro, and basically started after getting an iPhone (though he dabbled a bit with some P&S). But it is ridiculous when we take a picture of s scene together and his iPhone with HDR is getting better images than the 1D-C, because the 1D-C just can't cope with some of the highlight ranges out there.
BTW, why don't dslr's have built in HDR and not just bracketing? One day. People perceive the world in more that 12stops DR anyway, not that our eye can do it, but we perceive a fairly high dynamic range once we look around. Cameras generally disappoint in this area, with blacked out shadows and hot spots. And of course, not every scene requires HDR, but if cameras were intuitive to the range being captured and were able to normalize, that would be cool.
With the Dragon, it will be interesting to see people shooting in the sun with contrast again (and to some degree... for the first time). Everything since the digital/dslr revolution has been super back lit or shot in over cast weather.
Where Canon is separating 'pro' and 'consumer' will be interesting. The 1D-C should have RAW 1080HD.
Sam H was right though, consumer cameras don't need RAW, but RAW cameras should not be expensive beyond what is reasonable.
Last edited:
R Hudson
Well-known member
If Nikon went off the deep end and produced a camera to compete with the C300/100 that would be sweet!
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
The 5D3 has a built in HDR mode. I haven't used it much, but I have played with it a few times and once used it to generate a quickie HDR of an interior that was surprisingly good. If used properly, I would expect it to give better results than your brother's phone.
G
Guest
Guest
Very cool. Yes, in most situations, the dslr is better than an iPhone. Good to hear the dslr's are doing HDR now. (though, they will always be slowed down by the mirror slap, I'll look into the manual again, I wonder if they would ever have a function where all three pics are taken while the mirror is up at once? Sorry, thinking aloud, I will go read the manual.)
G
Guest
Guest
Now that would be a pro camera.
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
A separate recorder that is automatically triggered is far less hassle than dual audio, external battery, and extra rigging. If the BMCC was the same shape as the C100 with a swappable battery? Oh yeah, I'd take a good look at getting that! But the reality is that the C100 makes financial sense for another reason…speed in production. Being able to pull out a camera, turn it on and be shooting, with audio, in a matter of seconds and then be able to hand off that footage without a need for grading or synching audio is where the C100 really shines. As the Brits say "horses for courses". With a month of post time and a full crew on set, the C100 may not be the obvious choice compared to raw on something that takes more attention. On a weeklong documentary shoot where you're moving all over the place and shooting for hours every day, you'd be cursing that BMCC by the end of the first day.
To the original question of whether a camera like the C100 should have raw? I'd love that option, but I doubt I'd really use it all that much for most of what I shoot.
I 'm almost shocked to read this from you, James. Not bad or good, just surprised. I've had a year with the 2.5K Blackmagic and primarily shoot with that now, but it's definitely a red-headed step child with a really pretty face (image).
Canon gets my vote for being right about RAW and consumer cameras.
Interesting how Blackmagic is now becoming synonymous with RAW because of the price point, you can't have a conversation on it without one of the cameras coming up, and now it's released to everyone what owns the 1,000.00 Pocket Camera.
On cost of 2.5K vs C100 = they cost the same amount, really. Trying to shoot with a barebones 2.5K (which would actually be priced at about 1200 considering it comes with resolve) is basically inviting failure on a shoot. By the time you had a TVLogic, SSDs, Viewfactor setup, IDX batteries and charger, arm or two, handle you're back in the range of the C100 and once more trying to decide which tradeoffs you want.
Tsk.
dustylense
Veteran
I agree with Kholi here about costs between the BMC and C100 as a "working" camera. Once you add the things you basically need to run the BMC you are getting into barebones C100 price. RAW is nice to have but for lots of applications it's quite overkill. Add a Ninja to the C100 and you have a great image with a nice codec. It really depends on what you shoot and how much money you have to shoot the project in the budget. Both cameras are awesome tools.
Hey Kholi. Have you had the chance to export your tests of the BMC with the Mosaic? I think I would pick up the BMC again if the Mosaic did in fact take care of the moire.
Hey Kholi. Have you had the chance to export your tests of the BMC with the Mosaic? I think I would pick up the BMC again if the Mosaic did in fact take care of the moire.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Consumer DSLRs often have RAW photo abilities. The way I see it, why not offer the feature if you can? I think the future is that consumer phones will have an option for shooting RAW video. Just like with consumer DSLRs, most consumers won't use the feature, but it will be there if they want it.
Maybe - but do they have the ability to take 60 RAW images a second? Continuously?
And if they did, have would they manage coping with all that data?
Reading this thread, the core point which seems to be getting missed is that DSLRs are what the name implies. Cameras primarily designed for taking high quality still images. In many cases the yes, they have a video mode which bearing in mind the technology is often better than may ever be expected - but..... it can't be said too often that it's impossible to design a camera with optimal performance for both stills and video at the same time. They have conflicting requirements.
Hence, it shouldn't be a surprise that such as Canon design such cameras to be optimal for high quality stills.
As far as RAW goes, then still cameras need higher pixel count sensors than video cameras (even 4K video cameras). So to record RAW off such a sensor, you are immediately looking at 2-3x the datarate compared to a basic 4K sensor of about 8 Megapixel. Look at the costs of doing that for something like an F5 or FS700 and then ask how it's going to happen with a DSLR, let alone a mobile phone.
It becomes less a case of Canon just taking a decision "you know, we don't think our DSLRs should have a RAW video capability", more one of (quite logically IMO) realising that it doesn't make sense to go to great lengths to offer a facility that a relatively small percentage of their potential market will want. We're talking about cameras primarily intended for taking still photographs.
joe 1008
Veteran
While the industry is implementing the same resolution overkill they did with stills, we are not getting good codecs into consumer cameras. One of the reasons I don't like 4k is that it delays 10 or 12 bit codecs in the lower end camera lines for a couple of years. But certainly, as time goes by, RAW video and RAW stills are going to coexist in mid range DSLRs. The hacks of today are the standard of tomorrow. The price of processing power and storage will be low enough within four years. Remember that price is all that counts and that thanks to BM and RED the big players had, have and will have to move.
G
Guest
Guest
Haha, I am not sure which aspect has surprised you.
(edit, for what it's worth, there are merits which make Canon cameras like the 1D-C unique and therefore highly desirable, (for example, shooting at iso3200 with good image fidelity and fitting a whole kit into a small bag.) just not for everyone, as that is not always what is most important.
Last edited:
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
""Should"? According to who? Canon has a right to sell their cameras for whatever they want. Obviously something purchased for the purpose of making a living can have more of a price tag attached to it. What Canon "should" do is make as money as possible for their shareholders, as they are obligated by law, not follow some working-class style ideas about "fair price". Anyway, niche markets like pro film work will always be small and tools made for small markets are produced in smaller numbers, so they will always be more expensive to make.
BM makes cheap unreliable crap missing bare essentials like histograms, backfocus adjustment and proper OLPFs. They are not "the future" - they are addressing a market of no-budget filmmakers making small web videos, wedding videos etc with low-ish standards. That is not the entire market.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
What do you mean by "broadcast" I shoot promos and fiction television for national Canadian TV - 100% Red Raw. Canadian broadcast TV is not Hollywood, by any means, but it's not "no budget" either. It pretty much is the middle. We are shoot corporates, docos, all kinds of things all on Red Epic without any issues.
It's no big deal anymore. Hard drives are $100 for 2 terabytes.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
Because that would decimate sales of higher end models, which help pay for the research that goes into all the models. Not a complicated thing really. Canon is a business, not a no-budget filmmaker's charity.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Well, according to me, of course 
Whenever I speak up, I'm either stating a fact, or, more commonly, expressing my personal opinion. And opinions are like noses: everybody has one, and they are full of holes.
Again: I completely get that each company gets to decide what they try to sell, and at which price. And I have absolutely no saying in that, unless I design my own camera and bring it to the market myself. On the other hand, there are other players in the market, so they better not act surprised if they lose a market they had a firm grip on just a couple of years ago.
That "should" here means that, in a competitive market, one company or another will decide they want to go after that niche, and once they do, if they don't botch their design, the others will either follow or disappear.
edit:
This discussion reminds me of this Falk Lumo post from 2010 and this folloup from 2012: he stated that there was no technical reason for full frame cameras to be expensive, and predicted we would have entry-level fullframe DSLRs in a year or two. It has taken longer than he expected, but we are getting there. He even explains how the "supercriticality" changes the dynamics of a market in a disruptive way:
"This is known as "supercriticality": the market ought to offer uncrippled, full frame enthusiast cameras in the $1,500 segment but offers APS-C cameras instead. Supercritical systems "fall" into their preferred state after only small perturbations occur."
Whenever I speak up, I'm either stating a fact, or, more commonly, expressing my personal opinion. And opinions are like noses: everybody has one, and they are full of holes.
Again: I completely get that each company gets to decide what they try to sell, and at which price. And I have absolutely no saying in that, unless I design my own camera and bring it to the market myself. On the other hand, there are other players in the market, so they better not act surprised if they lose a market they had a firm grip on just a couple of years ago.
That "should" here means that, in a competitive market, one company or another will decide they want to go after that niche, and once they do, if they don't botch their design, the others will either follow or disappear.
edit:
This discussion reminds me of this Falk Lumo post from 2010 and this folloup from 2012: he stated that there was no technical reason for full frame cameras to be expensive, and predicted we would have entry-level fullframe DSLRs in a year or two. It has taken longer than he expected, but we are getting there. He even explains how the "supercriticality" changes the dynamics of a market in a disruptive way:
"This is known as "supercriticality": the market ought to offer uncrippled, full frame enthusiast cameras in the $1,500 segment but offers APS-C cameras instead. Supercritical systems "fall" into their preferred state after only small perturbations occur."
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
DSLR's are better than any phones, I was speaking a little out of context. Phones with HDR can give that initial look, which is mainly only good for the web. I would shoot with a dslr almost any day over a phone. As there is a different texture and quality richness which comes with a better camera. But when a phone gets a shot, that a 1D-C will blow out on, or that I'd have to go home and photoshop, it is just ignites a bit of gear jockery.
(iphone HDR photos)
Last edited:
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I have to agree here. Just because somebody wakes up and decides they want to make films for a living doesn't mean the tools should be free or dirt cheap. I have been in this business a long time and have seen lots of interesting changes happen when it comes to price structure with clients. Basically the industry is being destroyed by cheap gear. Now I like affordable gear compared to the next guy but we as a community have become obsessed with expecting $100,000.00 quality from a $1,200.00 camera. On top of that we are even starting to complain how $1,200.00 is too high of a price point.
I'm glad these cheaper tools have opened up doors for a lot of people but it is also forcing a expectation from a lot of clients that they can get a $10,000.00 production for $500.00. Yeah some of us laugh at that but somebody on this forum will take those jobs for that money and do a killer job on it to get the experience and build up their portfolio. Eventually all clients will want that for $500.00. Eventually all of us have to start doing that level of work for $500.00. Which in effect makes us want the gear to be cheaper. The gear gets cheaper and now there is more raw talent out there to compete with.
Talent is king but many clients are starting to realize the talent pool is much larger now than it was 10 years ago. This means they know they can low ball projects because there are enough people out there with really capable tools and amazing talent that eventually some poor sucker will take the job. It isn't all doom and gloom yet but the shift has already started.
I'm probably going to get beat up for this but I kind of wish the tools stayed expensive. Those of us who really want to use the tools will find a way. Renting is always an option but so many find that option appalling for whatever reason. For the frequency at which most of us upgrade our cameras I am willing to bet renting wouldn't be such a bad option. What about shared camera ownership? Like ride sharing programs. A small group can buy a camera together and schedule use of that camera. To be a good film maker you don't have to go to bed with your camera sitting on the pillow next to you.