Canon's 4K Cinema EOS Official Announcement & Latest Info-NAB 2012
- Thread starter PappasArts
- Start date
Well well well, it seems my statements have made quite a buzz haha.
Ok well I maybe old school but dont get me wrong, I do love new tech. I just hold dear to me what I enjoyed watching most of my life in cinema. And now that tech is evolving, I feel the craft is being let go. A lot of people praise digital for adding more shooters and access to the public, but I feel that its actually dumbing down something that was once "magic".
Its not longer special as it once was. There was magic happening in that box filled with film. Now its just a lifeless tech in my eyes.
All in all I'm happy my statements have made quite the outcry it did. At the very least its getting people talking about the importance of image quality to some extent. I Just dont want to see our lovely artfrom become something it never was... "typical, accessible, the norm".
It seems these cameras are sneaking up in tv more than ever now, and I'm just really not liking the footage that comes from them. I do know a lot of others who will say the same, but then again I'm on a digital video form so most of the people on here are going to disagree with me anyway. If I was on a cinema film form I might have the exact opposite replys.
Either way I hope that everyone at least hopefully is thinking about the art form and the craft and the importance of getting the highest quality image possible. Don't settle for something less quality for importance when a better quality is available to you. I would love to see more people talking about lighting than cameras. How great of a lighting setup someone has done, rather than what kind of camera someone used... but eitherway oh well.
I guess I'm a fossil already in the eyes of the digital guys, but at least I hope some of you see where I'm coming from and its from passion of the craft and preservation of it that I speak. Not from ignorance or blindness to a new age.
Thanks for all the replies either way. And I should be making it to cinegear and hope to see some there and I'll look you up for sure!
Ok well I maybe old school but dont get me wrong, I do love new tech. I just hold dear to me what I enjoyed watching most of my life in cinema. And now that tech is evolving, I feel the craft is being let go. A lot of people praise digital for adding more shooters and access to the public, but I feel that its actually dumbing down something that was once "magic".
Its not longer special as it once was. There was magic happening in that box filled with film. Now its just a lifeless tech in my eyes.
All in all I'm happy my statements have made quite the outcry it did. At the very least its getting people talking about the importance of image quality to some extent. I Just dont want to see our lovely artfrom become something it never was... "typical, accessible, the norm".
It seems these cameras are sneaking up in tv more than ever now, and I'm just really not liking the footage that comes from them. I do know a lot of others who will say the same, but then again I'm on a digital video form so most of the people on here are going to disagree with me anyway. If I was on a cinema film form I might have the exact opposite replys.
Either way I hope that everyone at least hopefully is thinking about the art form and the craft and the importance of getting the highest quality image possible. Don't settle for something less quality for importance when a better quality is available to you. I would love to see more people talking about lighting than cameras. How great of a lighting setup someone has done, rather than what kind of camera someone used... but eitherway oh well.
I guess I'm a fossil already in the eyes of the digital guys, but at least I hope some of you see where I'm coming from and its from passion of the craft and preservation of it that I speak. Not from ignorance or blindness to a new age.
Thanks for all the replies either way. And I should be making it to cinegear and hope to see some there and I'll look you up for sure!
squig
Veteran
But has the digital footage you've seen been lit well?
I got into shooting with DSLRs because used properly they can closely replicate the look of film for a lot less money and they have versatility that film can't match in size, weight, low light ability, and instant playback. Film still rules in dynamic range and colour rendition but digital is getting close. I love analogue audio and moving pictures but I can get the "magic" with digital with good lighting and grading, and if its a choice between shooting 35mm or getting final cut on my film I'll take final cut.
I got into shooting with DSLRs because used properly they can closely replicate the look of film for a lot less money and they have versatility that film can't match in size, weight, low light ability, and instant playback. Film still rules in dynamic range and colour rendition but digital is getting close. I love analogue audio and moving pictures but I can get the "magic" with digital with good lighting and grading, and if its a choice between shooting 35mm or getting final cut on my film I'll take final cut.
cpc
Well-known member
Will you still hold this view on the importance of the "highest quality" some 5-10 years from now when film is a distant second behind high end digital acquisition in terms of any imaginable elements of quality?
What would you rather see.... A pristine, perfectly shot but bog standard rom-com staring Jenifer Lopez..... Or a rough around the edges, but highly intriguing film that uses the C300 to really push the boundaires of the art form?
You talk about the magic of film making, but want to keep it all to yourself and the big guns.
You talk about the magic of film making, but want to keep it all to yourself and the big guns.
Great point. You could really use the C300 creatively, especially in low light. I personally am getting quite tired of the "let's light everything with huge lights, even at night"-approach, which is easy to spot now, post film-era. Using the C300 creatively in "moon light" (like that one test-film) could result in extremely interesting looks.
KahL
Well-known member
Posts like this always bother the living hell out of me for a number of reasons.
For one, there isn’t any “magic” with regards to any tech that is out of the reach of a certain budget demographic. It’s just simply out of reach for many and that’s about it. The “magic” that happens is more of a fandom placement more than anything else. It’s people making things appear so much more complex than what they really are in this regard.
While I agree to a certain extent that making things too accessible will water a craft down, these cameras being presented have so little to do with this dilemma. If anything, they’re priced out of range for the masses to take advantage of them and if they are indeed within an accessible price range, they’re so grounded in the technical aspects of the craft they would remain obscure to a casual audience anyway. No general Joe Shmoe is going to shoot with the Black Magic camera or even the Digital Bolex. People who are strongly interested in filmmaking will.
DSLRs were a first step. Now the trend has decreased significantly and what remains are those who either have the cameras collecting dust, or people who have genuinely taken the craft seriously and have created careers off of the trend. At least I know I have.
Sure we have many more movies being submitted to film festivals. But, the cream always rises and that doesn’t mean that everyone who has a camera will generally be considered a great cinematographer or director. It just means they have a camera. That’s about it.
This inherent fear of democratization with people seems so silly to me. If you’re a genuinely great photographer, you have nothing to fear. Whether it’s on an iPhone or an Alexa. A price gap shouldn’t be your bar for security and if it were, then a more serious problem existed way before democratization occurred in the first place.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
Have you guys ever seen this movie here?
...shot on 35mm Kodak film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488478/technical
The guy gave to the author of Burnt by the Sun, Urga, Oci Ciornie and so on... the look of digital : D (but random!*)
* I know the full length footage on-screen, not only the trailer on youtube ;-)
...shot on 35mm Kodak film.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0488478/technical
The guy gave to the author of Burnt by the Sun, Urga, Oci Ciornie and so on... the look of digital : D (but random!*)
* I know the full length footage on-screen, not only the trailer on youtube ;-)
Last edited:
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Jim Anderson
Well-known member
I own two HVX-200s and they have been amazing, but for the adaptor, I think it's just not worth the trouble. The 1/3rd chips have always been a weakness, but the 100mbps DVCPRO-HD codec seemed to make up for it. I have shot many scenes with the other camera being a Sony 800 or HDX-900 and it would cut like a hot knife through butter both on HD television or HD projection. I just purchased the C300 to take it up a notch for clients who wanted the F3 or similar. The 8 bit factor didn't bother me at all considering my client base. The television networks are starting to ease F3s into the mix to shoot along with other elements shot on the HDX-900s, but except for NBC's 30 Rock, (that shoots on F3 and records to Gemini's or Nanoflash units at 4:4:4 10 bit), only 35mbps 8 bit to match what the other cameras are generating. The in-camera 4:2:2 50mbps the C300 generates sold me.
I don't understand this attitude. I will always support efficiency over inefficiency. A one time the rail roads had a guy on every train that had only one job, to shovel coal. Eventually, the trains didn't run on coal. But the Union insisted every train keep a guy on board for that job anyway so they wouldn't lose jobs.
Why wouldn't we fire this guy and put him to work doing something actually useful instead of just padding the payroll with unnecessary jobs? That just seems like a waste of time, money, and man power to keep jobs for no reason.
Digital cameras have created DITs. I'd rather see people do new useful jobs than be kept around on the payroll for no real reason other than to keep the union happy.
Why is it a shame to be efficient? It seems a shame to me to waste money on jobs that are not needed when that same money could be spent on something useful. You can buy more wardrobe, build bigger sets, hire more extras, get more special FX, shoot more on location, etc. You want production value on the screen, not wasted money to keep people employed.
All I have to say is: have a job for 20 years, be the one of the best at what you do, have a steady pay to support kids and family, and then get "fired" as you said, to the be forced to learn a new skill which puts you at the bottom, with possible less pay, and certainty less experience.... I just don't understand how people talk like this... Just fire someone?? Thats why America is pushed for jobs, because they are firing everyone and getting greedy by slimming down. Keep peoples jobs goes and they will continue to produce top notch films in return.
I'm thinking about the filmmakers the ACTUAL people who make the films. You're talking about "Studios" and producers who'd rather save money to get a film done. I say get good at what you do and you'll eventually have the ability to make that film the right way with a full crew, and proper equipment.
Theres crafts and jobs to protect, but It seems like no one cares all just because they wanna flood the market with more under-produced films? I understand that every once and a while something GREAT will come out of a DSLR, or other low budget camera, but for every one of those I'm sure there's 50-100 films that will never see the light of day which just dumbs down the industry.
I say we agree to disagree on this fourm lol no use.
how do those 50-100 films that never see the light of day possibly affect your elite group of huge budget film makers?
when you suggest keeping staff on in redundant roles, just to keep jobs... you are talking about bad business moves... would you prefer a few guys get laid off or a studio run the risk of going under? business is business..... if technology means that less lighting crew are needed.. that is just an unfortunate side effect of making films with new technology.
final thought.... you are from the old school.... why not thank your lucky stars that you had decades of stability... unlike us guys who know that a long term ,stable career is a pipe dream for most
when you suggest keeping staff on in redundant roles, just to keep jobs... you are talking about bad business moves... would you prefer a few guys get laid off or a studio run the risk of going under? business is business..... if technology means that less lighting crew are needed.. that is just an unfortunate side effect of making films with new technology.
final thought.... you are from the old school.... why not thank your lucky stars that you had decades of stability... unlike us guys who know that a long term ,stable career is a pipe dream for most
Wolfenbarg
Member
This is just silly. The money they'd save on having crew to manage redundant elements could be used to pay for another rewrite, to bring on more designers, artists, craftsmen, post production work, and so on. You know, on people who actually work on elements that the audience will see. Keeping redundant staff just for the sake of saving jobs keeps costs high, which increases risk, which keeps the cross section of stories told to mainstream audiences incredibly small because investors and producers won't want to lose money on projects. In every generation of filmmaking we've been capable of doing more because of how much technology has increased efficiency.
Technological progress is not the same thing as human progress.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
more footage
more footage
extract of a native file:
https://www.yousendit.com/dl?phi_ac...ownload%26batch_i d%3DQlVqQ1ZwbWdubHl4djhUQw
more footage
extract of a native file:
https://www.yousendit.com/dl?phi_ac...ownload%26batch_i d%3DQlVqQ1ZwbWdubHl4djhUQw
Last edited:
KyleProhaska
Veteran
Thank you! So glad someone posted a RAW file...NOBODY does that anymore. It's the best way to see a no bull example of what a cam can do. And a wide-shot no less, not a flower, cat, or a plant blowing in the wind. Thanks again
Grug
Veteran
Far less than we used to though. You can currently get a C300 for $15,500, that's $14,090 once you claim back GST. That's cheaper than you can get it in the US!