C300: Canon provided LUTS - no conversion to production camera

G

Greg Hughes

Active member
I was watching the YouTube video posted by canon with Loren converting log 2 to log 3 etc etc.

Loren mentions some LUTS he created himself which are not provided by canon.

Is there anywhere that has conversion 1D luts from log 2 to log 1? Also looking for a production camera gamma... I can't see it anywhere in the folder.
 
Convert (just about) anything to anything and/or create custom LUTs along with custom tweaks: https://cameramanben.github.io/LUTCalc/

Production camera is a matrix / color-only tweak (not a gamma. Canon Log 2 is almost exactly the same as ARRI LogC (verify using LUTCalc and see the curves)). Canon's Cinema Gamut is similar to ARRI's, so Cinema Gamut + Production Matrix + Canon Log 2 can use Alexa Rec709 LUTs with decent results. I stopped using ARRI compatible settings and moved to complete custom settings (and using Canon Log 3); don't use a LUT in post anymore.
 
I understand Canon Log 3 is the full 0-100 on the waveform and clog 2 goes below.....but what benifit do you gain from Log 3? I would love to use a solid baked in look but im too afraid to lose the ability to make changes in post.

Some people say Canon log 2 - Natural - Production camera......but your advocating c log 3 - cinema eos - production cam?
 
Greg Hughes said:
Some people say Canon log 2 - Natural - Production camera......but your advocating c log 3 - cinema eos - production cam?
Click to expand...

I might be misunderstanding your question, but I'm pretty sure those aren't choices for the picture profile. You have a choice of a gamut, a matrix, and a distribution curve. You are listing two color matrices along with a distribution curve. At least that is what I thinking I am seeing.

Regarding using clog2 or clog3 for your distribution curve, I think it depends on post production. Supposedly, clog2 should protect your RGB channels a bit better in the whites and pull up the darks to give you more visible stops, but I don't know if those extra stops are actually useable. Clog 3 gives you a bit more of a natural look before applying a LUT and won't fall apart completely at lower bitrate settings after applying a LUT. It is basically Clog1 with more dynamic range for the whites. Or at least that is how I undersand it.
 
Canon Log 2 has less code values at the top and more noise in the shadows vs. Canon Log 3. It seems like Canon is doing other processing beyond the gamma curve when switching between Canon Log 2 and 3. Canon Log 2 seems a lot noisier in the shadows beyond the elevated black levels. Testing indoors with a bright practical light in the frame, I didn't find any highlight advantage to Canon Log 2 over 3. Thus the only place I could see Canon Log 2 being useful over 3 is perhaps outdoors in very bright light (to get more shadow detail).

After developing Filmic Skin for the 1DX II (and all Canon DSLRs), I found the 1DX II looked better than the C300 II with the ARRI LUT compatible settings for skin tones (Canon Log 2 (gamma), Cinema gamut (color space), Production matrix (color tuning / look)). I spent a considerable amount of time testing all the C300 II settings (and I mean all of them, not just the 3 common settings listed here) to try to get the C300 II looking as good as the tuned 1DX II. Once I had a few decent settings, I tested these settings with all the most useful gammas: Wide DR (live streaming), Canon Log, Canon Log 3, and Canon Log 2 (in order of increasingly lower contrast). I wanted to make sure nothing unusual was happening with color when gamma changed. I also experimented with Canon LUTs, NLE builtin LUTs, as well as creating them using LUTCalc. The goal was and still is to get the best possible skintones (1st), then the best highlight quality, then shadows in that order. While Cinema gamut may be useful for specific cases and when uses ACES etc., I wanted the best color out of camera with the least variables and possible surprises in post. That meant using settings that only required gamma/contrast adjustments to get an excellent result if the footage was lit and exposed correctly. What I found was these final settings provided this performance, and now I don't use LUTs. All that's required is a simple contrast/gamma adjustment and the results are excellent with very little effort.

I recently tested these settings on the new Canon C700 FF at Samy's in LA and the results were spectacular. When the C700 FF is publicly available, perhaps I can record some footage and share the results. Would be cool to put the tuned C700 FF against an Alexa LF / Sony VENICE and see how the color and detail compares (all FF cinema cameras). The C700 FF has DPAF face tracking with EF lenses, and full manual cinema lenses can use DPAF boost MF to nail 4K focus (I tried this at Samy's and it worked great with the Canon 85mm cinema prime lens). Thus Canon could have a serious competitor to the Alexa LF and Sony VENICE, especially if nailing focus in a timely manner has a significant cost effect on the production. Nailing full frame 4K focus with wide apertures isn't easy (and while Canon's latest EVF is amazing, I felt a lot more confidence in focus with boosted MF active). Also note the C700 FF has eye tracking, so getting the eyes in focus is even better than the C300 II (perhaps they added it due to shallow DOF from FF).

In summary, it's important to do testing to find out what works best for you. I have 3 different settings for the C300 II for different uses/looks (during R&D I used up all 20 slots and shot a tons of tests).
 
Fantastic reply

Sorry I got a colleague to type the reply earlier so I think they got confused as I was saying it out loud.

So you recommend these settings:

Canon log 3 (sometimes 2)
Cinema gamut
Production camera

Along with the off contrast adjustment you think these settings are good to go? I might need to do further testing with this. The xc15 looks great with production camera. The equivalent on the C300 mkii is wide DR, rec 709, production camera.

I just want something easy and alexa like.... I might use clog 3 from now on
 
Sure those settings can work, however Cinema gamut is a huge color space, and really needs a LUT/transform to bring back into 709 or 2020 (if doing HDR delivery). Try out the other color gamuts and see how they look. Similarly, the other color matrices can also be useful, depending on subject shooting conditions. Once you find combinations you like, save them as presets for quick access.
 
jcs said:
The C700 FF has DPAF face tracking with EF lenses, and full manual cinema lenses can use DPAF boost MF to nail 4K focus (I tried this at Samy's and it worked great with the Canon 85mm cinema prime lens). Thus Canon could have a serious competitor to the Alexa LF and Sony VENICE, especially if nailing focus in a timely manner has a significant cost effect on the production. Nailing full frame 4K focus with wide apertures isn't easy (and while Canon's latest EVF is amazing, I felt a lot more confidence in focus with boosted MF active). Also note the C700 FF has eye tracking, so getting the eyes in focus is even better than the C300 II (perhaps they added it due to shallow DOF from FF).
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the Canon cinema primes are the only cinema lenses that DPAF boost MF works with. It does not work with my Canon cinema zooms on my C300 Mark IIs. I can't imagine it being a common scenario where a production would have the budget/be considering an Alexa LF, and then end up using Canon cinema primes, which are mid-range lenses (not high end). I also can't imagine many high end DPs choosing lower end lenses just for (minor) focus benefits when they've got a good 1st AC they rely on, and rather will continue to choose the lenses more so based on characteristics and image quality.

I also don't find the DPAF boost MF completely reliable, and always double check the monitor to make sure it's in focus, thus making the DPAF boost MF only mildly beneficial. I use it on occasion for sit down interviews with L-series or Canon cinema prime lenses as a second opinion on focus.

I hardly ever put L-series lenses on my Amira, personally.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I can't imagine it being a common scenario where a production would have the budget/be considering an Alexa LF, and then end up using Canon cinema primes, which are mid-range lenses (not high end).
Click to expand...

You never know... Altered Carbon, which was shot on the Alexa 65 used Canon cine primes and Cooke S4's & S5's.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I'm pretty sure the Canon cinema primes are the only cinema lenses that DPAF boost MF works with. It does not work with my Canon cinema zooms on my C300 Mark IIs. I can't imagine it being a common scenario where a production would have the budget/be considering an Alexa LF, and then end up using Canon cinema primes, which are mid-range lenses (not high end). I also can't imagine many high end DPs choosing lower end lenses just for (minor) focus benefits when they've got a good 1st AC they rely on, and rather will continue to choose the lenses more so based on characteristics and image quality.

I also don't find the DPAF boost MF completely reliable, and always double check the monitor to make sure it's in focus, thus making the DPAF boost MF only mildly beneficial. I use it on occasion for sit down interviews with L-series or Canon cinema prime lenses as a second opinion on focus.

I hardly ever put L-series lenses on my Amira, personally.
Click to expand...

The C700 FF has an updated tracker: tracks the nearest eye (from what I could see in the limited demo). I suggested to the Canon rep that they do a side-by-side test against the other FF cinema cameras- sounds like they are already planning to do that, though unclear if that will be a public demo or for internal use only.

Shooting the C700 FF with lowly L lenses and chromatic/illumination correction enabled (bringing them up to a higher level) along with full DPAF against LA's top focus puller on an Alexa LF / Sony VENICE / Red VV and Cooke lenses would be very entertaining and possibly an enlightening test (like John Henry vs. the steam drill). I'd also be interested in testing L's against Cooke's to see if it's possible to develop an MTF simulation process in post to match the Cooke character (simulating flare behavior would require custom code). For shots with constant camera and subject motion, where full DPAF AF would be useful, focus breathing shouldn't be an issue. While I haven't been taking notes, I've seen plenty of top level productions with missed focus, and find it's highly unlikely a human being with 100ms reaction time can come anywhere near the accuracy of a computer controlled focus system (minimum and being generous human reaction time; the average is around 250ms). In the past AF systems weren't very good, however DPAF (and also Sony's latest DSLR AF) are getting to be functionally useful. Not perfect yet, but in the cases where it works, it's far superior to what a human can do (especially for non-rehearsed / random motion subjects). And while shooting FF at F/T 2.8 and faster might be infrequent, in those rare cases DPAF can make impossible shots possible. And that's something valuable that the other higher end cameras can't do.
 
All good to speculate on the future of how auto-focus will improve and become more prevalent. I'm speaking about current tech, though. My experience with the C300 Mark II (current tech) in a narrative environment is that DPAF is of limited use, and a focus puller and pulling manually is preferred in most cases. Do you do any narrative work? It seems not, so I'm not sure you understand the benefits to a focus puller and pulling manually in that type of environment. Correct me if I'm wrong. For corporate videos, docs, events, etc., I use DPAF regularly, but that's a different type of filming.


I've used DPAF on narrative films when I didn't have an AC, and man, it is a pain and has lots of limitations on the types of shots you can do. I recall this one time I wanted to do a simple push in, but there wasn't enough contrast/light on the actor for the DPAF to work (it hunted), so I asked the lighting guy to put more light on the actor so I could focus, and he was like, "What? It looks good how it is. You don't put light on someone for the sake of auto-focus." Well, he was at least right in that you shouldn't have to.

Many times I've had to explain to a director, "We can't do that type of shot because the auto-focus can't do that...if we had a wireless follow focus..."
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
All good to speculate on the future of how auto-focus will improve and become more prevalent. I'm speaking about current tech, though. My experience with the C300 Mark II (current tech) in a narrative environment is that DPAF is of limited use, and a focus puller and pulling manually is preferred in most cases. Do you do any narrative work? It seems not, so I'm not sure you understand the benefits to a focus puller and pulling manually in that type of environment. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

[BEGIN_GOING_WAY_OFF_TOPIC]

I work in technology- camera systems (including 3D and depth mapping sensors), image processing, 3D/computer graphics, physics simulations, artificial intelligence, IoT, big data, etc. Film work is on the side, mostly for the benefit of others (self help videos). Familiar with manual focus systems and therefore also familiar with their limitations. Here was my very first try at a manual focus 'torture test':

Not bad for first try, not great either. F4, full frame (5D Mark III and 24-105 F4L). Was actually pretty easy. That said, it was HD, a relatively soft lens, and the 5D3 is soft 1080p.

100% not very good AF and/or locked MF (GH4 and GoPro):

GH4 again, lots of post work to fake lots of things:

First try at a narrative short. Many walking/tracking shots (Salton Sea etc.) shot with very bad contrast detect Sony A7S I AF (all greenscreen was GH4; some shots both cameras locked/MF):

For blurry 1080p, focus wasn't that critical. For highly detailed 4K, focus is a lot more critical.

Most of the Cosmic Flow content is C300 II on a tripod, green screen and (excellent) AF. Some shots 1DX II, 100% DPAF (works amazingly well).

As a filmmaker, I'd rate myself fairly basic, as a technologist I have a little more experience. And thus I can design camera tests that are difficult for MF while easy for AF. While far more sophisticated computer focus systems are coming, the C700 FF is here now. And it will be cool to compare dynamic motion shots with the C700 FF vs. ARRI/Sony FF, shallow DOF, and in 4K and see who wins. This is a Canon thread, shouldn't we be rooting for Canon? :) (especially as the underdog to ARRI)

[END_GOING_WAY_OFF_TOPIC]
 
I don't think comparing your own manual focusing capabilities is a good comparison since you're not a professional focus puller. Since the C700 is marketed as a high end cinema camera for narrative work, the comparison should be to a highly skilled 1st AC pulling focus manually.

For montage style work where the shots are 3-5 seconds, DPAF often works fine, and that's how a lot of doc style work is shot - interviews and brief b-roll shots. The moment a take becomes longer, has focus transitions, etc., DPAF becomes useless, and that's how a lot of cinema is filmed. Try to imagine DPAF working for any single shot in Birdman, for example. It wouldn't.

I agree there are certain types of shots that DPAF can pull off that would be very difficult to pull off manually. I'm just not convinced that in a narrative environment those shots are common enough for DPAF to be a "Wow feature" of the C700.
 
I agree- if the C700 FF can perform focus tasks better than a highly skilled AC, even if for only certain types of shots, that's added value that would be in Canon's interest to demonstrate.

The C700 FF at $33K, VENICE at $42K, and Alexa LF $98.2K (1st 2 cameras body only), should provide progressively better quality along with the cost. From the online demos so far, this appears to be accurate, though the VENICE is showing some amazing detail vs. the Alexa LF (6K vs. 4.4K sensor). What I'd like to see is all three cameras shooting the same shot (like the Alexa LF faces/animals demo) to see how well each camera does color and detail. Then some FF tests with shallow DOF and both camera and subject motion focus tracking in 4K. If the latest eye-tracking Canon DPAF can best a pro AC, cool, if not, it will still be a useful color/detail test as a bang for buck comparison.
 
Not one episode of House was shot on the 5D. That's become an urban myth. A couple of scenes where he climbed under the collapsed concrete walls of a building to attend injured people was all that was shot on the 5D.

As for the Canon primes the old K35 series are still very popular. They were used amongst others on Manchester by the Sea (2016), Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt? (2014) and when they were"new" Aliens (1986) by James Cameron. Plus some other films and series. The Lilyhammer series (2014) looked great with them. Lenses, if they give you the look you want then they are good for the job. Furious 7 (2015) even went as far as to use the Nikon Nikkor 18-85mm lens. A very ordinary lens but it was the best choice for the particular shots they after.

Chris Young
 
Eric Coughlin said:
I don't think comparing your own manual focusing capabilities is a good comparison since you're not a professional focus puller. Since the C700 is marketed as a high end cinema camera for narrative work, the comparison should be to a highly skilled 1st AC pulling focus manually.

For montage style work where the shots are 3-5 seconds, DPAF often works fine, and that's how a lot of doc style work is shot - interviews and brief b-roll shots. The moment a take becomes longer, has focus transitions, etc., DPAF becomes useless, and that's how a lot of cinema is filmed. Try to imagine DPAF working for any single shot in Birdman, for example. It wouldn't.

I agree there are certain types of shots that DPAF can pull off that would be very difficult to pull off manually. I'm just not convinced that in a narrative environment those shots are common enough for DPAF to be a "Wow feature" of the C700.
Click to expand...

After spending some time with the C700 FF, I am convinced that it is stronger as a higher end documentary camera than a feature narrative camera anyway. If you subtract the cost and weight of the Codex back and media and just shoot it's XF-AVC (it looks better than the Prores, Prores is simply there for Arri workflow compatibility), it's actually a pretty small and light camera in comparison to your Amira, which we all know is a tank. After shooting CRL for the past year, while I think it's a wonderful format, RAW is not suited to high volume, quick turnaround shooting. The C700FF ergonomics blow away the C200/C300 MKII ergonomics for traditional documentary shooting where you have a camera, a tripod and your shoulder and are in the field shooting on the fly and traveling, I can't imagine dragging an Amira to Morocco or in the streets and jungles of Brazil while I could see doing that with the C700 FF easily. The FF imager looks really nice. I'm not saying I would buy it over your Amira but as a shoulder mounted documentary, travel and high end corporate camera, it would be pretty sweet. And you always have the option of renting or buying the Codex back and media if you do delve into the occasional narrative, higher end project. For shooting in my world, DAF is indepensible although I agree, for narrative work, not nearly as important, nothing is going to touch a pro AC.

Just like the C200, I think the world has the wrong view and idea about the C700FF. It's not what the world thinks it is (not really made to compete with Arris and REDs and the Venice) and it has several unique features and considerations that other cameras in it's price range lack. I like it better than the S35 only C700. I think it is still too expensive for what it is, but historically, eventually, it's price will drop and it will become priced where it probably should be.
 
puredrifting said:
After spending some time with the C700 FF, I am convinced that it is stronger as a higher end documentary camera than a feature narrative camera anyway. If you subtract the cost and weight of the Codex back and media and just shoot it's XF-AVC (it looks better than the Prores, Prores is simply there for Arri workflow compatibility), it's actually a pretty small and light camera in comparison to your Amira, which we all know is a tank. After shooting CRL for the past year, while I think it's a wonderful format, RAW is not suited to high volume, quick turnaround shooting. The C700FF ergonomics blow away the C200/C300 MKII ergonomics for traditional documentary shooting where you have a camera, a tripod and your shoulder and are in the field shooting on the fly and traveling, I can't imagine dragging an Amira to Morocco or in the streets and jungles of Brazil while I could see doing that with the C700 FF easily. The FF imager looks really nice. I'm not saying I would buy it over your Amira but as a shoulder mounted documentary, travel and high end corporate camera, it would be pretty sweet. And you always have the option of renting or buying the Codex back and media if you do delve into the occasional narrative, higher end project. For shooting in my world, DAF is indepensible although I agree, for narrative work, not nearly as important, nothing is going to touch a pro AC.

Just like the C200, I think the world has the wrong view and idea about the C700FF. It's not what the world thinks it is (not really made to compete with Arris and REDs and the Venice) and it has several unique features and considerations that other cameras in it's price range lack. I like it better than the S35 only C700. I think it is still too expensive for what it is, but historically, eventually, it's price will drop and it will become priced where it probably should be.
Click to expand...
The C700 body is 7.6 lbs and the Amira body is 9.2 lbs, so just 1.6 lbs more. Dimensions for the Amira are 5.4" x 5.8" x 12.1", dimensions for the C700 are 6.6" x 6.1" x 12.9". So the C700 is slightly larger on all accounts. Once kitted out with a cinema zoom, viewfinder, etc., my Amira is about 24 lbs, so, if it was a C700 with similar kit, it'd be 22.4 lbs, hardly a weight difference that would make much real world difference, so I disagree with your sentiment about the Amira being a tank compared to the C700.

Interestingly, I've found the Varicam LT to be poorly balanced on the shoulder. It's short and wide, making it harder to counterbalance, and the viewfinder adjust-ability is lacking making it difficult to position well (with stock parts). The LT also has the control module generally positioned on the back of the camera, which is absurd for shoulder mount use. The Amira balances beautifully on the shoulder. I haven't tried the C700, so I can't comment in this regard.

With that said, I personally am not a fan of "traditional documentary shooting." I like to have some slider shots, Glidecam shots, etc., such that I actually prefer the C300 over the Amira for a lot of doc work. The Amira quickly becomes limited to shoulder-mount and tripod only for doc style work, as well as being difficult to fit in confined spaces such as a car. All good for narrative work where I can break out a full size dolly (such as the Dana), full size Steadicam, etc., but for doc work that's impractical. Sure, you get an image quality boost over the C300, but at the cost of the types of camera movement you can do as well as how nimble you are. And DPAF is great for doc work. But the C700 is too big for Glidecam and not as ergonomic and heavier for simple slider shots. I've said it before, but if they were the same price, I'd still choose a C300 over a C700.

Heck, even from a marketing standpoint, I get C300 requests all the time. If a C700 was my A-cam, I'd have to explain to clients why to choose the C700 over a C300.
 
Last edited:
Guess I was factoring in using heavy PL mount glass on your Amira versus smaller, lighter glass on the C700 FF. I shoot with mostly still lenses and most of the time, the shortcomings don't bother me for how I shoot. Occasionally I'll have a client request a "slow, smooth zoom" and I can't supply it unless I know it beforehand and rent the CNe 18-80 T4.4. But generally, I find the image differences in lenses to be mostly transparent to most of our clients, I've rented very high end lenses (Cookes and Panavision glass), lit well and shot and then did another shoot with still lenses under similar conditions and the clients balked at $800.00 to rent the high end lens set because they couldn't tell the difference. They think it is just a DP thing to passify me, they honestly can't tell the difference in the image so why pay extra for it? As far as size, yes, similar and the C700, with a brick on the back is long, very long as is your Amira.

As far as camera movement, I am the opposite, I have grown to loathe gimbals and to me, a Glidecam or Steadicam, I'm going to hire a pro anyway when those tools are needed so what do I care if my camera isn't optimum for that? Neither the Amira or the C700FF are good on either IMHO, too large and heavy, I would much prefer the C700FF as the A camera and a C200 or C300 MKII as the Glidecam/Steadicam camera if that came up. My preference and my clients preference lately is for handheld camera, a look that none of those tools can deliver with any authenticity. Same with dollies, I think for certain looks, they're fine, I used a Dana dolly last year with the C300 MKII for a dance series, but for my average shoot, nobody wants or needs dolly shots.

It's probably from shooting off of boats so much in the past year or so but I am liking the lean approach to shooting so much more than using all of the toys. But I am shooting documentaries, not much narrative, commercials and music videos. My corporate clients seem to also be following the trend of not liking, wanting or needing gimmicks like gimbals, sliders or even multiple cameras. I did a two camera shoot last week but it was a 1080 shoot and I used my 80D for second angle, client knew it wouldn't match the look of our C200 A camera and was happy with that as the show will have a stylized look anyway so the colors are in the same neighborhood. I agree about the Varicam LT, it's a heavy little beast and is short, almost too short. I love the images though. The C700FF seemed to balance nicely on my shoulder but different strokes. In general, I am much happier with small and light cameras like my C200, EVA 1. Generally, I find large and heavy cameras a hindrance, I had to deal with the Sony F900 and my Betacams for years, my BVP-70/BVV5 Betacam back in the day with the heavier Anton Bauer bricks was knocking at 30lbs, ughh. I'm lucky I don't have back problems from all of those years.

I see your material and you seem to tend to shoot more polished styles than I prefer and that's cool, we all should have our own style. My style is definitely rougher, less polished. For me, it's been a slow evolution of "slick is often boring, moving the camera, unmotivated by character or story, simply because it can be moved is contrary to the visual style of cinema and I really, really dislike it and in the end, from a photography point of view, almost all that matters is lighting and composition, camera movement I am fine with the rougher, more human feel of bobbing when walking, sort of slopiness in movement when you are shooting a real person in a real situation. Really audio and the story matter ten times more than any of the previous stuff I mentioned. Even in documentary especially, nailing everything technically perfectly matters so much less than capturing incredible moments, emotions and truths, even if white balance is off, exposure begins off and ramps to correct, camera movement is rough, none of that matters if you get the shot and the heart of the matter.

It's like our Go Pros. I HATE Go Pros, they are a really terrible excuse for a camera, super unreliable, randomly shut off, get corrupt card files, get water drops on the lens at the worst posible moment, overheat, etc. But some of the most amazing moments of our story were captured on them. So I am learning to "embrace the suck" because in the end, the audience isn't going to care if those shots look like crappy Go Pro, they're going to care that we captured that magic moment when there was no other way to do so.

True, I think an Arri or C300 MKII would be a much easier sell to a client because the C700 FF hasn't yet made inroads and may or may not make a dent in the market. But it is a great camera and there is a lot to like about it. I just hate to see people (not you) bash it who have never used it and don't understand Canon's intended purpose for it.
 
puredrifting said:
Guess I was factoring in using heavy PL mount glass on your Amira versus smaller, lighter glass on the C700 FF. I shoot with mostly still lenses and most of the time, the shortcomings don't bother me for how I shoot. Occasionally I'll have a client request a "slow, smooth zoom" and I can't supply it unless I know it beforehand and rent the CNe 18-80 T4.4. But generally, I find the image differences in lenses to be mostly transparent to most of our clients, I've rented very high end lenses (Cookes and Panavision glass), lit well and shot and then did another shoot with still lenses under similar conditions and the clients balked at $800.00 to rent the high end lens set because they couldn't tell the difference. They think it is just a DP thing to passify me, they honestly can't tell the difference in the image so why pay extra for it? As far as size, yes, similar and the C700, with a brick on the back is long, very long as is your Amira.
Click to expand...
Unlike the C700, the Amira has user swap-able mounts, so it's more flexible in those regards. I use EF mount on my Amira; I don't own any PL mount lenses. I really don't get the advantage of PL; it seems more cumbersome to swap lenses. As it's locking EF, it means I'm able to my Canon cinema zooms (4.2 lbs) without additional lens support and it feels super solid, which saves a lot of time rigging compared to when I use those lenses with my C300s.

You can set user buttons to adjust aperture of non-manual lenses on the Amira, which I find a little cumbersome as I haven't found a way to set a dial to control aperture. I suspect the C700 is more streamlined in control of electronic aperture. I believe a firmware update on the Amira has enabled IS to work with lenses that have it, but I haven't updated to the latest firmware to test it out.

I tend to notice the difference in image quality between cameras, but perhaps like your client I don't tend to notice much difference between the image quality of lenses. Then again, I haven't shot with lenses higher end than Canons, nor have I done side by side comparisons. The Canon cinema lenses do obviously give you various mechanical advantages. I do know that the footage I shoot with my Amira and Canon cinema zooms generally looks way better than the footage I shoot with my C300s and L-series lenses.


I think there's a certain irony in Arri marketing the Amira as a doc camera, me thinking it's better as a narrative and commercial camera, and Canon marketing the C700 as a cinema camera, and you thinking it's better as a doc camera.

I could see a valid argument for choosing the C700 over the Amira for doc work, primarily because of DPAF and better low light capabilities, but I'd personally rather use a C300 over the C700 for doc work. The C300 Mark II with the C200 touch screen monitor and C300 audio module is a thing of beauty, and with a friendly codec for doc work that the C200 lacks. I currently have a couple setups I do for C300 shoulder mounting, one is very lean and mean, for shorter term shoulder mounting shots, and the other is larger but more comfortable for all day shoulder mounting (like reality TV). The smaller setup, for example, can easily fit in a car and small spaces.


As far as Glidecam or Steadicam, no need for me to hire a professional since I am one. :) The Amira certianly isn't too large for a full size Steadicam; I use it commonly on Steadi. I mean, you can put an Alexa 65 on Steadi, no big deal if the Steadi is rated for it. Just the Amira is way too big for Glidecam which means you can't use it for run n gun one-man-band Steadicam shots. I don't like gimbals (for the most part, not saying they don't have uses) as well and have practically never used one on a shoot, just tried them out briefly on shoots here and there. I often see their type of movement actually lowering the production values of a shoot.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top