Canon to release a C500 II RF version

[ahalpert]

I meant is the Z Cam F8 specifically relevant to Canon price structure. Aside from the fact that it's from a small, upstart company, it lacks features and components of the Canons. I don't see BM as a direct competitor either, although they are possibly established enough to exert downward price pressure.

It seems like the UMP 12K decently solves the data bandwidth issue. Not that that helps anyone else. H266 12K should be about double the bitrate of H264 4K.

Even if you want all that detail, can your lens resolve it? It seems like to resolve the 12K, you really need to be choosy about your lenses. John Brawley also mentioned that he can see a visual difference between 8K and 4K, but not between 12K and 8K. Which implies to me that 12K is most useful for cropping/post-stabilization.

So, I feel like 8K capture might be a sweet spot of price/performance. Go up to 12K and you'll pay in data and optics without always delivering a benefit

 

[Liam Hall]

Focus by wire ... really high end.

It's great for ultra-shallow DoF interviews on full-frame cameras. Cients love it...

 

[puredrifting]

It's amazing to me that anyone would own a C500 MKII or a C300 MKIII and even care if an RF version is being released. Clients won't know or care, why would the owner?
RF, so far, has been distinctly unimpressive as a new standard. The new lenses, while sharp, are expensive, focus by wire oddities for many of the models. When Canon transitions
their pro cine and servo zoom lenses to RF, then it might be something to get excited about but for the next few years, who cares as far as pro users? Most pro users I know
unless they are shooting documentary or lower end, don't think about or care about still lenses. They use PL or EF mount cine lenses.

 

[Run&Gun]

Is the z cam f8 really relevant?

And regarding 8K - I feel like the pipeline to support watching it must be a few years away, no? What are the 4K TV options today? Do people regularly watch 4K YouTube and Netflix? 8K requires 8x the bandwidrh. Or H266 decoders so that it matches 4K H264 bandwidth

Lots. It’s easier to get a nice “4K” TV than HD, today. And the manufacturing lines will continue to advance and 8K sets, regardless of content availability or even demand, will be the norm very soon. Just like ~20 years ago, a nice 50” HD plasma cost as much as a new car, but today you can get an 85” 4K set for a few grand at the grocery store(Costco or Sam’s Club).

As far as 4K consumption, I guess that’s up to the individual, because the options are there, easy and affordable. I have two “4K” viewing options in my house, a 55” OLED and 120” front projection, along with reasonably fast internet and 4K streaming available from Netflix, Disney+ and Apple TV+. So pretty much anything that is available in 4K from them, I see it in 4K automatically(I did seek out the 4K Super Bowl stream that FOX did through their app and it was amazing. It blew away any live telecast that I’ve ever seen). And there are times I will seek out 4K/8K content on YouTube, but that is MUCH rarer, because it’s still somewhat cumbersome to search and view YouTube content on “TV” vs. your computer or smartphone. You have to be way more motivated.

 

[Run&Gun]

It's amazing to me that anyone would own a C500 MKII or a C300 MKIII and even care if an RF version is being released. Clients won't know or care, why would the owner?
RF, so far, has been distinctly unimpressive as a new standard. The new lenses, while sharp, are expensive, focus by wire oddities for many of the models. When Canon transitions
their pro cine and servo zoom lenses to RF, then it might be something to get excited about but for the next few years, who cares as far as pro users? Most pro users I know
unless they are shooting documentary or lower end, don't think about or care about still lenses. They use PL or EF mount cine lenses.

I look at RF not for, “I can use RF lenses, now”, but that it opens up more lens options with just the use of adapters. Kinda like with the Komodo. RED is taking a beating from some, because it doesn’t natively work with RF lenses, yet. Who cares? RF lenses aren’t out in the wild in the numbers that EF, PL and other existing mount lenses are, but you can slap an EF or PL lens on it with JUST an adapter. And actually gain functionality that is lacking natively, namely built-in ND.

At this point, I’d much rather have a native RF Mount camera, than EF, just from the adaptability and versatility standpoint.

 

[ahalpert]

I misspoke - I know that 4K TV sets are the norm. Is there 4K TV broadcast/cable? True, streaming... it would be easy for streamers to go up to 8K, with the proper hardware acceleration in your streamer box

 

[Run&Gun]

I misspoke - I know that 4K TV sets are the norm. Is there 4K TV broadcast/cable? True, streaming... it would be easy for streamers to go up to 8K, with the proper hardware acceleration in your streamer box

Currently in the US, I do not believe there is any over the air 4K, outside of possible testing. True cable, I don’t know, but satellite, yes. The best way to view 4K right now, besides UHD/4K Blu-ray, is via streaming. Satellite and cable can’t even do justice to 720. I can watch an HD program via DirecTV and watch the same HD program streaming via whichever networks app on my “TV” or Apple TV and it’s literally a night and day difference in the quality. The stream has so much more fine detail and without compression artifacts like excessive banding and blocking.

 

[dc4040]

It's great for ultra-shallow DoF interviews on full-frame cameras. Cients love it...

You are correct ... it does best in that setting ...

I tend to shoot MF at F4 - 5.6 even though my lenses are T 1.5.

Shallow for stills ... like to have a bit more in focus in video. And the focus confirmation box with magnification is wonderful.

 

[ahalpert]

Sounds like all non-internet media delivery is a dead man walking... especially once starlink launches... all that extra infrastructure for an inferior product? Of course , you could sell the same cable packages/service but deliver via internet. Numerous companies do that now

 

[DLD]

I meant is the Z Cam F8 specifically relevant to Canon price structure...

Yes. This isn't a Hyundai Veloster vs. Porsche 911 comparison of two different manufacturers making automobiles at two different end of the market. It's more like a Veloster to Toyota 86/Subaru BRZ comparison, where Toyota/Subaru can no longer sell a $30,000 "sport car" with a 6.5s 0-60 because there's another car with similar features in the same price range who does it in low 5's and about to do it it in high 4's. But 911's are effected by a 2.9s $60,000-$90,000 Corvette and 3.8s Boxster/Cayman S are by a 3.8s Supra. Everything is connected. Supra may not be a Cayman GTS but it's also $50,000 cheaper and it sells well.

In the low end cinema world, BMD and Z Cam matter because the market itself isn't in millions of units sold and, should Z Cam and BMD lineups pick up 20,000-30,000 pieces across their ranges, it's a huge bite out of the Canon C and Sony's F lines. For the same reason, Red mattered too. Red One wasn't F35 but it was a lot cheaper.

Lots. It’s easier to get a nice “4K” TV than HD, today. And the manufacturing lines will continue to advance and 8K sets, regardless of content availability or even demand, will be the norm very soon. Just like ~20 years ago, a nice 50” HD plasma cost as much as a new car, but today you can get an 85” 4K set for a few grand at the grocery store(Costco or Sam’s Club)...

back in 1998, a friend and I went to Fry's in Burbank where I saw a Philips plasma for the first time. A 46" standard definition for $14,000.

PS. As to resolution in general - old 65mm prints were equivalent to (here's the rough math) -

35mm 4-perf was ~ 6.5 MPX in B&W but, since the film itself was three layers multi color, it was ~ 13 MPX (4:2:2) equivalent compared to a digital Bayer sensor. 65mm is 3.5 times the 4-perf, so it is roughly 45 MPX.

The difference here is that almost no one had a 65mm film projector at home and one needed to be very wealthy to even have a 35mm film projector home theater. Thirty years ago, the high end was a Barco front projector with a line doubler that gave a 480p rez and available for $20,000-$30,000. Watching a laser disc on it from a "normal range" was quite nice.

As to the NEXTGEN TV, it's rolling out but 2020 was not the year to break out new things.

https://www.sportsvideo.org/2020/10...xtgen-tv-on-four-local-tv-stations-in-austin/

https://aithority.com/internet-of-t...ment-through-network-function-virtualization/

 

[ahalpert]

Or Canon could look at Z Cam and decide that it makes no sense to compete on price and instead offer a premium product from a legacy brand for a premium price. If the market besides the 30k units they lose is going to go with a trusted brand with a reliable product, then raising the price to offset the losses is all upside

 

[Ken1212]

I meant is the Z Cam F8 specifically relevant to Canon price structure. Aside from the fact that it's from a small, upstart company, it lacks features and components of the Canons. I don't see BM as a direct competitor either, although they are possibly established enough to exert downward price pressure.

The question is why? About six years ago Canon released the first DPAF camera, the 70D. Right away I new the value of that camera for b-roll footage, bought one and loved it. In fact, I recall posting on this forum bragging about it's AF and some replied AF is not for professionals. I laughed and said to myself they don't know what they are missing. Now a day's, everyone is talking about DPAF and how great it is. I believe this is one of the most important features today when assessing cameras specially for run and gun. In the next few years technology will evolve in which we will be able to program focus points in camera and nail every single shot for the most complex takes. In addition, cinema lenses as we know them today will be something of the past and you will see new players in the field, focus pullers take note. As long as Canon and Sony are leading the AF technology they do not need to worry too much about Z cam and Blackmagic.

 

[NorBro]

Focusing in post via key-framing is the future. AI will help.

My dream, and the perfectionist's ultimate dream for running-and-gunning, or maybe everything.

32-bit floating audio plus focusing in post + RAW flexibility will be the definition of "fix it in post".

 

[ahalpert]

You need a light field camera to focus in post and that will cut your resolution to a fraction. And you can't readjust camera position (by much). And exposure will always matter because there will always be a sweet spot.

But yes eventually fix it in post will be cheaper and more practical than doing it right, just like AI editing. And then we'll all become either producers or dentists

 

[NorBro]

High-resolution plenoptics coming soon...start looking for another job, you're done...

lol.

 

[jb.]

It's amazing to me that anyone would own a C500 MKII or a C300 MKIII and even care if an RF version is being released. Clients won't know or care, why would the owner?
RF, so far, has been distinctly unimpressive as a new standard. The new lenses, while sharp, are expensive, focus by wire oddities for many of the models. When Canon transitions
their pro cine and servo zoom lenses to RF, then it might be something to get excited about but for the next few years, who cares as far as pro users? Most pro users I know
unless they are shooting documentary or lower end, don't think about or care about still lenses. They use PL or EF mount cine lenses.

Right there with ya. I see no need to move most of my lenses to RF anytime soon even though I have an R5 on pre-order. I'll get the 24-105 in RF to hang off of the R5 when I'm carrying it around as a walk around camera, but other than that I'll be using the RF/EF adapter to put my EF lenses on the R5.

Also, as a former Z-Cam owner who lives on Canon EOS C cameras, they're in entirely different worlds in all but image. I'd pay a HUGE premium over the Z-Cam for a Canon EOS C camera with the same image specs. Handling, speed, built-in features, a user interface that's honed through feedback from professional users for a professional set are worth that huge premium IMO.

Some will make a different choice there... but I can tell you running a Z-Cam E2 and running the C300 Mark III is a completely different experience... and I definitely prefer the C300.

 

[ahalpert]

High-resolution plenoptics coming soon...start looking for another job, you're done...

lol.

Link?

One issue with that approach is that you must end up storing a multiple of the original data, somewhat limiting the practicality, especially for the low-end work where it's most called for. Need much more throughput in the camera and cheaper storage first. It'll happen, but probably not on the timeline of the optimistic projections.

The other thing is that it basically only solves one issue (focus) which is already largely handled. I'm sure there are scientific and novelty applications as well. and I think I remember something about changing the focal length. But I bet it's 10-20 years out from transforming the industry.

And that old chestnut - camera placement, movement, framing - will never change and hasn't changed since the lumiere brothers. So, just as autofocus might lower the skills bar for entry, fix it in post tools could do the same. But skilled operators with good eyes will always be in demand. Humdrum work like conference filming will be most impacted, and even there there's usually a b-roll/beauty component

And yes - it opens up doors in cinema and might put some focus pullers out of business. But on the high end you'll always want major talent in the camera department to get the most out of the tools and handle the situations they can't

 

[DLD]

Or Canon could look at Z Cam and decide that it makes no sense to compete on price and instead offer a premium product from a legacy brand for a premium price. If the market besides the 30k units they lose is going to go with a trusted brand with a reliable product, then raising the price to offset the losses is all upside

It works this way only with the staunch brand loyalists, which are few and far in between these days (aside the Canon Rumors and Red boards).

But let's go to the video tape. Sony released F35 6.6MPX, RGB 2K for $250,000 in August, 2008. Three years later, it had a 4K 17.6 MPX F65 for $77,000 (+20K more for the Codex recorder). In another nine months, it announced a 4K F55 for $35,000 (+ recorder). So, one four years, Sony had to come out with a much lower priced camera, with superior specs to boot.

Why?

Competition from Red, Canon and ARRI.

You need a light field camera to focus in post and that will cut your resolution to a fraction. And you can't readjust camera position (by much). And exposure will always matter because there will always be a sweet spot...

It's actually not that difficult now. You just have to shoot at F8 or so and then smudge the image in post. As FPS rates get higher, you'd be able to stagger the apertures further or shoot dual-cam a la a 3D camera.

Cinematographers would love it. Producers and the financial backers far less so.

 

[ahalpert]

It works this way only with the staunch brand loyalists, which are few and far in between these days (aside the Canon Rumors and Red boards).

But let's go to the video tape. Sony released F35 6.6MPX, RGB 2K for $250,000 in August, 2008. Three years later, it had a 4K 17.6 MPX F65 for $77,000 (+20K more for the Codex recorder). In another nine months, it announced a 4K F55 for $35,000 (+ recorder). So, one four years, Sony had to come out with a much lower priced camera, with superior specs to boot.

Why?

Competition from Red, Canon and ARRI.

It's actually not that difficult now. You just have to shoot at F8 or so and then smudge the image in post. As FPS rates get higher, you'd be able to stagger the apertures further or shoot dual-cam a la a 3D camera.

Cinematographers would love it. Producers and the financial backers far less so.

But camera tech also presumably became cheaper to manufacture. And there are still some who prefer the F35 to those other cameras.

Shooting at f/8 and blurring in post is different from a light field camera. and f/8 is not enough DOF for critical focus in S35 across the necessary range for any focal length except ultra-wides. Also, there seems to be a limit to sensitivity of CMOS. The A7SIII can go way up there but it still looks like **** compared to its base ISOs. So it all depends on how much quality you want to sacrifice.

What does stagger the apertures further mean? You're losing me

 

[DLD]

But camera tech also presumably became cheaper to manufacture. And there are still some who prefer the F35 to those other cameras....

And you know what a lot of people prefer even more?

Pay a lot less for F35. Or F65. Or Alexa.