C700: Canon EOS C700 FF full frame 5.9k Raw

mproust14 said:
He is throwing numbers out there - he doesn't actually know what the costs are to add the unit, plus media and reader.
Click to expand...

Not sure which He your talking about. If it's this he...the numbers I quoted are directly from BHphoto. Feel free to look it up. The Codex unit for the C700FF is the same one that's been available since launch of the original C700, as are the other components. All the Canon production items (VF, mounts, etc) are the same items that have been available for some time.

As for the other thing, whether the C700 is competitive on price. I think nobody questions that. It's currently the lowest price FF system, (we don't really know what Venice costs for FF, as it's not been announced what that upgrade will cost, but it's still more expensive without the FF upgrade). The point of my earlier post was simply that you can't really take advantage of the camera's full Tech, without a significant additional investment. I think if Canon want's a prestige product that sits in rental houses along side Alexa LF, Monstro, Venice et al, then this camera will probably do a middling job at achieving that goal. If it wants to sell a bunch of cameras to end users, they need to come up with a way of writing 6k to an internal solution thats reasonably priced. It can be done.
 
Barry G said:
If it wants to sell a bunch of cameras to end users, they need to come up with a way of writing 6k to an internal solution thats reasonably priced. It can be done.
Click to expand...

If you really need the 6K in order to ring every last bit of information out of the sensor in post, you could always rent the recorder. It seems like a specialized need to me. For almost all normal commercial or broadcast work, wouldn't the editor just prefer the processed 4K footage? This is assuming that Canon has a decent method of processing to 4K in camera.

Rawlite seems like a decent solution and I would assume it is easier to work with than the RAW Canon output, but I still don't know what it is. Has Canon released a white paper, yet? How much noise processing is being done?
 
cpreston said:
Rawlite seems like a decent solution and I would assume it is easier to work with than the RAW Canon output, but I still don't know what it is. Has Canon released a white paper, yet? How much noise processing is being done?
Click to expand...

No Whitepaper, and I'm trying to find a link to where I read this to share, but Canon has gone on record saying CRL is just file compression and doesn't throw away any data.

Honestly I think RED and BMD do RAW best right now of all the cameras I've used.
 
cpreston said:
If you really need the 6K in order to ring every last bit of information out of the sensor in post, you could always rent the recorder. It seems like a specialized need to me. For almost all normal commercial or broadcast work, wouldn't the editor just prefer the processed 4K footage? This is assuming that Canon has a decent method of processing to 4K in camera.

Rawlite seems like a decent solution and I would assume it is easier to work with than the RAW Canon output, but I still don't know what it is. Has Canon released a white paper, yet? How much noise processing is being done?
Click to expand...

I suppose you could, and perhaps canon is, argue that this is really just a superior 4K camera, because it’s oversampled. That’s fine. But so is the Panasonic EVA. I think my point comes down to the traditional elegance of canon’s development: Compact self contained cameras that just work. I believe this system would find its market if it stuck to that ethos. 6k internal raw CRL recording, and lightweight proprietary batteries, include the vf. Keep it under 40k and I’d figure out a way to own one. They could do this and still have the codex option.
 
They should do what it takes to do high-speed prores with no crop. Maybe this camera is a few years off for Canon, but its basically what everyone wants.

All of these ifs and buts are no good. You can't promise your postproduction dept prores and then switch to XF AVC for any high speed shots at 60fps... and then also crop to S16 for anything higher. People will look at those compromises and just hire an Alexa which can do 200 fps with no crop.
 
jcs said:
...
People are "lazy". And by lazy, meaning when they get a new camera, they want to see what it can do with the least amount of work. Very few people will ever tweak picture styles, and most just want great imagery with the least amount of mucking around with settings, myself included!

In summary,....

6. Autofocus! .... I'd expect Sony's Venice to provide decent AF, .... if they can tune out the 'video look' to their color science (at least as the default option),
Click to expand...

Great post!

Custom LUTs and baked look works fine in an Owner/Op world where production is small enough that a DP can pay attention to those details. On some bigger shoots I've found that cameras get added and removed from set at a speed that makes tweaking the LUT tricky. So I end up relying on what's default. And I've found many other DPs to do the same. Arri set the benchmark, a pretty consistent look since SUP3 on Alexa Classic, across many models and firmware upgrades. Other camera makers need to follow suit or loose out.
(I'm not a hater of Canon default look, I actually quite like it!)

Sony Venice will not have any Autofocus. That's what Sony reps told me when they had a demo. It's a camera for 'big' productions where the budget for a good focus puller is a given, I was told. No autofocus was listed on the upgrade roadmap slides they showed either. IMHO they've improved the 'video look' a lot, looks better than F55 and even F65. You should check it out!
 
The Alexa will own the big shoots for the near term. Everyone saw the reported cameras used to shoot all the Oscar nominees? Film, then Alexa. That's it.

Then there's everything else. And here the C700FF looks very interesting. Is it missing obvious specs like 12 bit color depth, in camera RAW, possibly higher frame rates? Yes, but it'll be one of if not the only full frame true digital production camera on the market with a working AF system. For smaller shoots that's potentially a great asset. On these smaller shoot no producer wants to shoot RAW- they need faster turnaround. Lower post costs. Smaller shoots will also have a huge array of glass to choose from.

Canon should be more aggressive with pricing- look at the C500 and C300 Mk2, where they ended up (I owned/own both, along with Odyssey 7Q recorders). After several years NOT ONE PRODUCER was willing to go RAW. If it really has 15 stops of DR in Prores, RAW is not necessary for a working rig- at least not with my clients.

So as disappointed as I am with Canon (I HATE the monitor unit on the C series, just for starters) I think Canon made a great indie/ Owner-op camera. But in today's market my guess is that it will be a mid range camera on medium or smaller budget projects.

Jim Martin, if in 6-12 months C700FF sales are lagging and Canon starts taking C300M2 bodies on generous trade in- please PM me!!!
 
Mark Smith said:
I am curious about your filmic skin profile for the 300Mk2. What did you do to solve the problem that you Think Canon has with skin tones. I’ve done a bit of work in this area with my own camera profiles and have got something that I think is better than ‘out of the box’ but I am always open to learning new solutions.
Click to expand...

After initial testing when the C300 II was released, I settled on using the "ARRI" settings (Canon Log 2, Cinema Gamut, Production Matrix). Almost all the shoots were in my green screen studio. I used decent quality Aputure Lightstorm lights, and got skin tones that looked good to me. Later, I started shooting in different locations and noted the skin tones had a magenta bias, for example. Here's an example of uncorrected Canon magenta bias: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4hgzqdcFc8

Brent does an amazing job discussing the camera, and everything else looks pretty good, however there's a few issues with this promotional video:

1. Magenta skin bias (viewed on 2 calibrated Dell monitors, Apple MacBook Pro, iPhone-X). Works OK in a green screen studio, perhaps shooting on green grass, elsewhere not helpful
2. No example footage from the new camera?
3. Fan noise audible even with listened to on my iPhone-X speakers

If Canon wants to compete with ARRI, Sony, Red (towards the high end), they've got to up their presentation game. Skin tones needs to be perfect, show example footage (studio beauty shot is easy, right? Same for something in nature, just a few seconds, don't need a story at this point), and audio- it's so easy to make it perfect, especially in a studio (after the C500 fan noise fiasco one would think they'd go to great lengths to not have fan noise in a promo video? :) ).

Look at the Filmic Skin examples on my website- do the skin tones look correct? Look good or even great? If so, why don't the built-in profiles look like that?

I haven't released C300 II Filmic Skin yet (need to wrap up a high-performance networking software project first). I developed the custom settings for the C300 II by using the best light I have, a Fiilex P360EX, which provides smooth control of color along with a high CRI/TLCI. I viewed the C300 II HDMI output (only 1080p! that was a bummer when I discovered no 4K) on a calibrated Dell 4K display (has a factory calibration and I also use an i1Display Pro) and then I went through every setting and combination, including fine tuning the matrix, until I achieved skin tones that looked similar to Filmic Skin on the 1DX II.

I then used a special PC set up for live video capture (4 HDMI inputs) along with OBS to provide side-by-side viewing of the C300 II and the 1DX II to further match the C300 II to the 1DX II with Filmic Skin. Once I got a pretty good match over HDMI, I recorded internally and then compared in PP CC. That's a whole 'nother discussion: HDMI output doesn't match the recorded video. So the next step is to dig deeper, using scopes on the live HDMI and then compare via scopes on the captured footage to see what is changing. Here's a C300 II Filmic Skin example (RGB 444 12-bit upscaled to 4K) and an earlier (prototype) 1DX II example: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?358807-C300-II-1080p-RGB-444-upscaled-to-4K

The whole point of this project was to create a style that isn't a style, a paradox. Simply trying to capture an accurate representation of what the eye sees, as closely as possible. For example, use a mirror and compare to what the camera captures. For those who have not done this test, you may be shocked at how far off most cameras are!

To your question, what is the problem to be solved? To make the camera produce accurate colors and contrast, etc., as closely as one would see when using a mirror in the same settings. I think that's why ARRI is so popular- being accurate is predictable, less surprises in post, etc. The challenge for camera manufacturers is the wide variety of lighting conditions and environment color reflections to deal with. We find the answers by really pushing saturation and correcting until the scene/shot looks good at the limits of pleasing saturation. Dialing back saturation for a specific look is easy. Or maybe color isn't that important to some folks (magenta Canon promo video)? I hope someone from Canon reads these posts and they up their game, because if one guy can improve* the color of Canon cameras to look more like ARRI, Canon as a company can certainly do it! Make cameras accurate like mirrors to the eyes first, we can apply styles in post :)

* more accurate as the eye sees it in a mirror.
 
Parrot said:
Great post!

Custom LUTs and baked look works fine in an Owner/Op world where production is small enough that a DP can pay attention to those details. On some bigger shoots I've found that cameras get added and removed from set at a speed that makes tweaking the LUT tricky. So I end up relying on what's default. And I've found many other DPs to do the same. Arri set the benchmark, a pretty consistent look since SUP3 on Alexa Classic, across many models and firmware upgrades. Other camera makers need to follow suit or loose out.
(I'm not a hater of Canon default look, I actually quite like it!)

Sony Venice will not have any Autofocus. That's what Sony reps told me when they had a demo. It's a camera for 'big' productions where the budget for a good focus puller is a given, I was told. No autofocus was listed on the upgrade roadmap slides they showed either. IMHO they've improved the 'video look' a lot, looks better than F55 and even F65. You should check it out!
Click to expand...

Yeah, I really don't want to mess around with picture styles/profiles. I've spent way too much time trying to make various cameras look good... RAW was really a punt- the ultimate fix-it-in-post. I think most people want what ARRI offers with the Alexas + ProRes. Predictable, accurate color which can be easily styled to taste with the least surprises in post. ARRI does an amazing job with color on over exposure recovery. In general, we also want color not to change with exposure. Magenta <=> green shifts are a common issue. This is more than just fixing WB in post with different exposures: shadows, mid tones, and highlights are also affected by this issue within the same frame!

So less settings, less tweaks, just accurate, easy to adjust in post color. ARRI has shown the way; Canon and Sony are getting closer but still not there- is this a priority for them?

Venice: the demo footage has the True 4K detail (6K => 4K), felt like video to me from demos so far (can be fixed in post: again, follow ARRI- make it look good/accurate straight from camera). Fair enough re:AF, however Sony could do it if they wanted to. Perhaps PM another thread to discuss the Venice :)
 
klk said:
The Alexa will own the big shoots for the near term. Everyone saw the reported cameras used to shoot all the Oscar nominees? Film, then Alexa. That's it.

Then there's everything else. And here the C700FF looks very interesting. Is it missing obvious specs like 12 bit color depth, in camera RAW, possibly higher frame rates? Yes, but it'll be one of if not the only full frame true digital production camera on the market with a working AF system. For smaller shoots that's potentially a great asset. On these smaller shoot no producer wants to shoot RAW- they need faster turnaround. Lower post costs. Smaller shoots will also have a huge array of glass to choose from.

Canon should be more aggressive with pricing- look at the C500 and C300 Mk2, where they ended up (I owned/own both, along with Odyssey 7Q recorders). After several years NOT ONE PRODUCER was willing to go RAW. If it really has 15 stops of DR in Prores, RAW is not necessary for a working rig- at least not with my clients.

So as disappointed as I am with Canon (I HATE the monitor unit on the C series, just for starters) I think Canon made a great indie/ Owner-op camera. But in today's market my guess is that it will be a mid range camera on medium or smaller budget projects.

Jim Martin, if in 6-12 months C700FF sales are lagging and Canon starts taking C300M2 bodies on generous trade in- please PM me!!!
Click to expand...
Will Do!.....
 
I suppose that the C700 body can't do Canon Raw Lite, as it still uses the "old" DigicDV 5 (x3). It would need the newest model 6 the C200 has to have enough processing power at the same framerates. But who knows, maybe a firmware update CRL with halved FPS is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top