Canon's 4K Cinema EOS Official Announcement & Latest Info-NAB 2012

[cowpunk52]

I agree that major television productions aren't going to choose a camera base on cost. Of course they won't. But cost isn't the reason to shoot with some of these new digital cinema cameras coming out. Form-factor, features and workflow tied up in a nice bow with exceptional IQ goes a long way toward getting a camera on set - and this is where Canon's C300, C500 & 1D-C are innovating. It's the same thing that happened with DSLR's, just another evolution. These cameras allow new ways of capturing dynamic footage that benefits the audience experience. This is why they are used, and that's exactly the number one reason how new camera technology should be used.

DSLR's & C300's are already being used in major productions, both television and theatrical features. It would be foolish to assume that the C500 and 1D-C won't be used in the same envrons.

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

I'm sorry but I find that quite hard to believe ...

Dude,

I find it hard to believe what you're saying. I have no idea who you are, where you are or what you do.

On the other hand, I can drive east on Burbank Blvd and see Jim Martin face to face. His company supplies grip, lighting, support and camera equipment to the industry in Hollywood. So if he says that he's selling C300's to tv shows and that others have interest, then he's selling C300's to tv shows and others have interest.

P.S. For you to claim that 12bit 4:4:4 w/ a global shutter is requirement for "any real tv series" is just bizzarre. And you're confusing a multicam setup used for the likes of sitcoms shot on a stage w/ the theatrical style camera setups that "any real tv series" uses.

 

[Emanuel]

My point is the camera rental costs are hardly anything, thats my point. The cost for 2 Alexa's fully kitted out for the shoot is much less than most of the rest of the equipment needed. Most of the time the cameras come with the lease, or even production company. The cameras are a VERY small part of the TV show budget.

(...)

The cameras, are never really touched. Neither is sound. The golden rule for producers is never f*ck with the sound or image.

The millions of dollars spent on the series when shooting comes no where near being hurt by the difference in prices of Alexa vs. C300. So theres no point. Plus unless a DP REALLY pushes for it, theres a lot of red tape to cut through just to change a camera system for episodic tv. Producers, networks, line producers, directors, visual supervisors, makeup, wordrobe, lighting, THEY ALLL are affected by a camera change, and it would actually cost a lot of money to test, and make sure the standards are met to replace an Alexa, just like they did when they replaced film... So there is no cost benefit. If anything it would cost more money for that season to change camera packages to please the client (the network/studio).

I'm sorry to be the big pain here, but in the real industry, theres no place for prosumer cameras when they are already using some of the best gear and getting it for next to nothing. They wont save money by renting C300's or any other camera bodies. They save money by getting monthly lease deals on Alexa packages, or simply just buy the damn cameras and write them off as a production expense and then keep them for later productions or sell them once they become obsolete.

The whole point you've seemed to miss is that there is NOT "1" one real industry but several ones. What kind of product we're referring to?

It is true the cameras can be the most insignificant part of the cake and everything you said it is true but...

You wanna talk about where they like to cut costs? Look at lighting rigs, now those are where a lot of the money is spent, lighting, power, HVAC, and talent costs, studio time, parking fees, ect. Those are the costs that they try to bundle and cut down on.

...right. Take a look in this fine US $500,000 example (with direct participation of Canal+ and Arte):

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1612774/companycredits
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0028557/
http://www.imdb.com/company/co0181546/

Could they shoot with another camera? (they did it on 5DII)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1612774/technical

US trailer

french trailer

Sure, they could. Did they?

 

[Emanuel]

I agree that major television productions aren't going to choose a camera base on cost. Of course they won't. But cost isn't the reason to shoot with some of these new digital cinema cameras coming out. Form-factor, features and workflow tied up in a nice bow with exceptional IQ goes a long way toward getting a camera on set - and this is where Canon's C300, C500 & 1D-C are innovating. It's the same thing that happened with DSLR's, just another evolution. These cameras allow...

...to cut below-the-line costs among others, grand total budget included. So, above-the-line too, when this means less amount to pay as percentage. BTW, it is a former TV producer (national TV with international release and taxes paid since 1995 until 2000) who writes now these lines

 

[indiawilds]

Canon has issued a press release that 5D II and 7D cameras have been used on the set of the movie "Marvel's The Avengers". Quoting the next few lines from their press release

"...With intense action and visual effects captured by the Canon cameras, "Marvel's The Avengers" required close-quarter action work with unrepeatable stunts. "The 5D Mark II and the 7D digital SLR cameras produce excellent, cinema-worthy images. They are great for shooting additional angles that give film editors more options for creating powerfully immersive and kaleidoscopic views of action scenes," explained the film's cinematographer, Seamus McGarvey.

On the set of "Marvel's The Avengers," McGarvey and his crew used five Canon 5D Mark II cameras and two 7D models. Using multiple cameras limited the need to re-shoot complex action scenes, and the affordability and compact size of the cameras enabled the crew to obtain ample coverage by strategically angling them from various vantage points throughout the set. "The cameras' small size was a major advantage to us. We were able to place them in tight locations that were really close to the big stunts, which would be too risky to do with bigger cameras that would require an operator and two assistants," McGarvey said. He was able to slide one of the Canon cameras into a sewer grating, while placing another under a pile of debris for a key shot of a car hurtling toward the lens, flipping through the air on fire.
For more check the press release here: http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e0248055b504


​

I agree that major television productions aren't going to choose a camera base on cost. Of course they won't. But cost isn't the reason to shoot with some of these new digital cinema cameras coming out. Form-factor, features and workflow tied up in a nice bow with exceptional IQ goes a long way toward getting a camera on set - and this is where Canon's C300, C500 & 1D-C are innovating. It's the same thing that happened with DSLR's, just another evolution. These cameras allow new ways of capturing dynamic footage that benefits the audience experience. This is why they are used, and that's exactly the number one reason how new camera technology should be used.

DSLR's & C300's are already being used in major productions, both television and theatrical features. It would be foolish to assume that the C500 and 1D-C won't be used in the same envrons.

 

[FilmDude]

I think we are all arguing because I'm talking about a completely different breed of "TV" show. I'm talking about major shows like 'House MD', 'Glee', 'Modern Family', 'Bones', 'Sherlock Holmes', 'Dexter', 'The walking dead', 'Mad Men'.... ect

I believe you guys are talking about reality based and small time shows. I'm talking about the major scripted shows. None of these shows will ever drop below an F35 in quality/camera build.

And as for the $500,000 movie you posted, I hate to sound negative, but it didn't look all that great, looked like DSLR footage to me, and its a VERY small budget independent feature. Most likely got picked up on the back end of things after it was made. The average theatrical release film cost about $30,000,000 to make, you're talking about a coffee budget film in comparison to the projects I'm talking about, i think thats where the problem is.

I guess it comes down to where you're looking in the market. I'll rephrase what I was saying. No "Major" scripted tv show will ever adapt a lower priced camera to try and cut costs, and or update gear for a prosumer camera. I'm sure shows like 'No Reservation', 'Mythbusters', and other reality based shows would be open to adapting to new looks and gear because they regularly do.

But just to make my point, just looking up the list of major shows, it turned out that 90% of those (without me trying to look for this) ended up having the F35 as a camera they are using or used for production... It goes to show you how much closer these shows are to start shooting with the new F65, because eventually that will push out the F35, but the workflow and gear can easily be swapped in for the new F65 way of life.

All said and done, I find it hard to believe any show that shoots with Alexa, Film, and F35's, F9000PL, or F23's are going to change their way of shooting, style of image, quality, and gear all to try and save cash. Just not going to happen, if they are that strapped for cash, most likely the show would be canceled anyway before that kind of money would be looked at for saving.

and I'm NYC based and deal with TV and motion pictures on the east cost side of life, so although I respect what someone at FilmTools.com has said about selling these cameras, thats selling cameras and not necessarily knowing exactly what they are going to do with the cameras in the long run, or if instead these shows are more on the reality based/interview/non-scripted type show, then sure I believe they'll go C300... but I have a hard time believing that those shows would have started shooting with an Alexa package in the first place.

There's not fighting happening, its just me explaining my side of the world. But either way I think it was a cheap shot at saying the F65 is an over-engineered camera and 8k is ridiculous to shoot with.... I'm pretty sure 20 years ago 4K would have been a pretty ridiculous idea to shoot with as well.... and would someone consider the RED or F35 setup overengineered comapired to a film camera? possibly so, but again, thats a cheap shot I feel and a really bad example being set for younger filmmakers who read these fourms for education and help.

Spreading the idea that a major cinematic device perupose built for the best quality and robustness for the tv and film industry and built from the ground up from what the client (DP/TV/Studio) wants. Its just not true, the camera is a wonderful shooting camera and will overtake the F35 realm which is ... HUGE already in TV and film, and it will stay that way for a while with the CineAlta F series cameras.

 

[FilmDude]

"The cameras' small size was a major advantage to us. We were able to place them in tight locations that were really close to the big stunts, which would be too risky to do with bigger cameras that would require an operator and two assistants," McGarvey said. He was able to slide one of the Canon cameras into a sewer grating, while placing another under a pile of debris for a key shot of a car hurtling toward the lens, flipping through the air on fire.

​

I believe again, this is being taken out of context... these are for "Crash Cams" they are intended to be in harms way and/or destroyed in the process of making a stunt shot. These cameras DID NOT shoot a large amount of footage for the film at all. It was small portions of stunt shots that needed to be placed in very dangerous spots. The DSLR's were used so that if the camera was destroyed it wasn't a big deal. But again, thats not a "B" Camera thats an "E, F, G" type camera whiere its intention is to capture something that is crashcam worthy and not necessarily main footage use.

As i said originally in large multi-cam setups I can see DSLR's being used and Canon C300 being used, because well... its not that important. But again the Avengers was NOT shot with those cameras, small amounts of footage from it was shot with them. There's a huge difference between a few seconds of action footage here and there from a big film, than if the whole film was shot with it. It was shot mostly with Alexa and film. My statement still stands, this is not a "B" camera for major cinematic or episodic tv.

Either way I think I've said my piece and I wont argue anymore, its just bothersome with the lack of proper information being spread around. No on can be "veted" on the Internet so if 1 person says "yeah a DSLR was used for the Avengers" that turns into a telephone game on the internet, the next thing you know, students are running around thinking that the avengers was DSLR footage... when it wasn't/ OH AND most of that DSLR footage in the Avengers was most likely covered up with multiple passes of SFX and CGI, and color passes, to the point where the only thing left was maybe a face from the actor, that was original DSLR footage...

Ugh I give up lol I made my point, if you wanna attack me, go ahead but I can back up my claims with a TON of DP's if you'd reallllllly want me to do the leg work and contact all these guys..

 

[Emanuel]

On the contrary FilmDude, your posts are really welcome. Thanks for posting.

However, as much as you say is true, the opposite can be defendable in the same way. In your mouth, it looks like these cameras are toys. And actually they've been adopted by countless agents in this business, broadcasters as well. Because they can complement or even compete with the "A" cameras IQ wise. Something impossible before, but not now. The way some elitist POV may be expressed written here (or anywhere else) can be, in the end, as much inaccurate as what you're wisely mentioning.

 

[maarek]

So what did Filmdude think of The Raid? Shot with the AF100.

"But THEY CAN'T DO THAT!"

Yes. They can. We can. And we will. And I don't get how the "Alexa" look is the be-all-end-all look for everything.

 

[FilmDude]

its not about you "CANT", its about using the right tool for the job. Learning that the camera is your paintbrush and paint, and if you dont use the right kind you're only hurting yourself. SKEW is a huge problem for any camera, having the best and fastest read speed on higher end cameras would be best for action and fast moves. Sure you can do that with a cheaper camera, but then you'll have skew. Mechanical shutter removes this issue, thus why I'd pick an F65 or Alexa with shutter for the job. Maybe to YOU skew is not that big of an issue, but to someone who is an videophile and cringes at the thought of straight lines going sideways, and jello motion...

Lets make this clear, I'm the type of DP that can tell film from digital even up till now. And up until recently even the best digital shoots still felt digital. There is a special feel to the way film is handled when its shooting, and its not something you can put into words. But there is a rock solid feel to the motion, and a very pleasing strobe. You can read TONS of articles from major cinematographers complaining about the 24p in digital still doesn't feel the same as 24p from a film camera.

Thats the type of level of quality I'm talking about, and thats the kinds of differences we're talking about. I'm not saying you cant. I'm saying at a higher level up in the field, a dp just wouldn't want to use any other camera but the best of the best to get his/hers image.

I can see a bunch of skew in "The Raid" but I can also tell it looks like some post work was done to add post shake to the camera to allow for that same dramatic feel without the jello.

Its just like the audio engineers who can hear pitches and differences most others cant, you have to know what you're looking at, and thats the big difference. If you can't tell, then this isn't a discussion for you. But if you can tell, then you'll most definitely be on my side of the story.



There's also this big gap being made between "professional" industries. Perfect example, NAB vs. CineGear EXPO. HUGE diffence in the people attending. Theres no real hollywood guys hanging out at NAB, sure maybe a few here and there, and theres so great fun cool stuff thats really helpful. But the NAB side of thigns is very much on the prosumer side of things in the "Film" world. Whereas CineGear expo is very different. Those are the big toys for the big shoots. Thats the gear used and invented for heavy pro use for feature film and tv that we all watch and love for years and years.

There's just a different level, even "pro" no longer means what it used to. Digital has separated a lot. It used to be everyone just knew 1 thing... Film.. It was the same no matter where you were in the industry. You still had to do the same thing on a low budget set as you did high budget set for film. Now there's people who are cinematographers who've NEVER shot on film. They dont even know where this gear spawned from, and not learning why film is what it is.

I'm very old school if you haven't noticed, and I'm trying to protect the industry I love and work in. Also realize that going cheaper usually means less crew as well, which effects jobs, and lives, and careers, and the whole industry. Keep the cameras big, and on chapman dollys and technocranes and let them be a bit*h to carry so you need assistants and PA's and gear for carts and all of that. Eliminating these things directly eliminates JOBS for the peopel who love what they do.

The digital age kindof snuffs the industry for jobs, and already there's a few positions that got hurt from the digital movement, and its a shame. Keeping the same high quality standards for our cameras in our department is very important. It keeps the quality up, and the best behind the cameras operating, pulling, lugging, and using that gear. Renting those extra parts, ordering more camera carts which all this money goes right back into the industry. It feeds off of this.

 

[cowpunk52]

I'm very old school if you haven't noticed, and I'm trying to protect the industry I love and work in. Also realize that going cheaper usually means less crew as well, which effects jobs, and lives, and careers, and the whole industry. Keep the cameras big, and on chapman dollys and technocranes and let them be a bit*h to carry so you need assistants and PA's and gear for carts and all of that. Eliminating these things directly eliminates JOBS for the peopel who love what they do.

The digital age kindof snuffs the industry for jobs, and already there's a few positions that got hurt from the digital movement, and its a shame. Keeping the same high quality standards for our cameras in our department is very important. It keeps the quality up, and the best behind the cameras operating, pulling, lugging, and using that gear. Renting those extra parts, ordering more camera carts which all this money goes right back into the industry. It feeds off of this.

Get used to it, this is the way the world works. We're in the midst of a major change in how television and motion picture entertainment is created. Jobs that have been around for decades will be eliminated. New ones will be created. There's no way you or anyone else can save it or keep it the way it was, and it's futile to even try. You've got to adapt. Productions are doing this constantly, and will continue to do so. Same with crew. Adapt or die; nothing stays the same.

 

[Jay Birch]

I'm sorry... but the last few paragraphs sound like someone clinging onto the good old days.

There is alot to learn from the audio and still image transition to digital.... This shouldn't be coming as any shock to you.... jobs will be lost and other jobs created, skilled individuals will make it work or adjust.

 

[FrameFarmMedia]

I'm sorry... but the last few paragraphs sound like someone clinging onto the good old days.

There is alot to learn from the audio and still image transition to digital.... This shouldn't be coming as any shock to you.... jobs will be lost and other jobs created, skilled individuals will make it work or adjust.

+1 adapt or get left behind.

 

[indiawilds]

When I look at the ocean, I see the waves coming again and again and hitting the shores. They go back only to come again, taking small bits and pieces of sand/earth with it. That is life. Life doesn't mean standing still. Life means a movement, a change towards better. We have to evolve, we have to adapt. Else, we will be thrown into the dark corners of history which nobody cares to read.

You feel the pain that someone who hasn't ever shot in film, is now competing with you. That is life.

I feel extremely happy that the new age tools empowers people. A person who has a dream in his/her heart can now stand up and showcase his/her work. I am not saying that he/she competes with you because I think a person should only try to unleash his/her potential. That will take you to your dreams.

Adapt or die; nothing stays the same.

 

[Jay Birch]

Also... surely talented grips, etc will be required whether shooting a film on a DSLR/C500/Epic or a huge film camera?

 

[jmmusic]

FilmDude, you make some compelling comments, and I agree with a lot of what you've said. There does seem to be a healthy dose of luddite thrown in, though. (And I'm a bit of that myself concerning many fields.)

I do find it puzzling that you mention high-end television production, actually start the list with House MD, and then fail to mention the season finale where they shot the entire episode, not E/F/G cam, on 5DMKIIs. Kind of goes to the heart of the matter of a big budget show not willing to try something new. (This thread is so long, maybe that was dealt with earlier?)

Also, as another poster said, FilmTools is pretty synonymous with big production in town. I'd not dismiss their comments on what's going out the door so lightly. DSLRs and their spawn are here to stay for use in all production budgets.

 

[Jim Martin]

Well.....I'm glad to hear your view from the east coast....as for some of your opening statements, I'll clarify from my end. NCIS-LA shoots with the Alexa (a few) and they bought a camera from me (w/ the cinevate plate) to add to their stable. I agree with you that a typical situation on the set in a 1 hour show where the A camera is covering the wide and the matching B camera is the close up/ long lens one. Often I hear that a show is an "Alexa" show, using multiple Alexas (2nd unit is off somewhere) and then they refer to a second camera they are using for special circumstances as B cameras.......so some of this argument is semantics. Anyway, NCIS-LA did buy the camera to use in B camera situations....night, tight spots, car mount, aerials, etc....so I think we can let it go at that. The strong codec that the C300 uses closely matches the ProRes 422 codec that is used on most 1 hours here in town ....and that, along with this camera's amazing low light capabilities, is why so many shows are investigating the C300. As for features, Ron Howard is shooting his latest on the C300....and I could list quite a few features in the lower to medium budgets (2-10 mil) that are shooting with the C300 as the A camera, some just because of the low light advantages.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

PS- I suspect that you will be at Cinegear so maybe you'll come up to me and introduce yourself...we'll be on one of the stages with the C300 all dressed up.

 

[squig]

I'm very old school if you haven't noticed, and I'm trying to protect the industry I love and work in. Also realize that going cheaper usually means less crew as well, which effects jobs, and lives, and careers, and the whole industry. Keep the cameras big, and on chapman dollys and technocranes and let them be a bit*h to carry so you need assistants and PA's and gear for carts and all of that. Eliminating these things directly eliminates JOBS for the peopel who love what they do.

The digital age kindof snuffs the industry for jobs, and already there's a few positions that got hurt from the digital movement, and its a shame. Keeping the same high quality standards for our cameras in our department is very important. It keeps the quality up, and the best behind the cameras operating, pulling, lugging, and using that gear. Renting those extra parts, ordering more camera carts which all this money goes right back into the industry. It feeds off of this.

The digital camera revolution is also creating jobs. More people are picking up cameras and making movies. Yeah this is mostly at the low budget end but it creates opportunities for bigger budget productions down the road. The D90 and 5D MKII were an important factor in my decision to quit the music business and get into the film industry. Now after 2 years of film school and 18 months writing a screenplay I'm looking for funding for a $3 million feature. I'm shooting it with a 5D MKIII, C300 or 1D C, and possibly an Alexa for a couple of shots in the Arizona desert. The crew will be quite small but I'm still creating work for a lot of people and bringing a lot of money into the country.

 

[mico]

I am a working union member in the industry. Here are the facts as I have experienced them.

I just finished a pilot for NBC. 2 Alexas, 2 canon 5D MKll's and a couple of go pro's

Every job, studio and major network, I've done in the past 2 years has had a 5d on it. It gets in places other cams can't.

No jobs have been lost in any departments from the film to video transition. And thats not the union keeping those jobs alive. Its manpower thats needed. In fact there may be more positions in the camera and video departments because video cams need new support where film did not.

Theres no adapt to die crap to this, its just a similar but different tool with the same support needed with a couple of new positions added to make the same product.

 

[Emanuel]

Lets make this clear, I'm the type of DP that can tell film from digital even up till now. And up until recently even the best digital shoots still felt digital. There is a special feel to the way film is handled when its shooting, and its not something you can put into words. But there is a rock solid feel to the motion, and a very pleasing strobe. You can read TONS of articles from major cinematographers complaining about the 24p in digital still doesn't feel the same as 24p from a film camera.

Thats the type of level of quality I'm talking about, and thats the kinds of differences we're talking about. I'm not saying you cant. I'm saying at a higher level up in the field, a dp just wouldn't want to use any other camera but the best of the best to get his/hers image.

I can see a bunch of skew in "The Raid" but I can also tell it looks like some post work was done to add post shake to the camera to allow for that same dramatic feel without the jello.

Its just like the audio engineers who can hear pitches and differences most others cant, you have to know what you're looking at, and thats the big difference. If you can't tell, then this isn't a discussion for you. But if you can tell, then you'll most definitely be on my side of the story.

There's also this big gap being made between "professional" industries. Perfect example, NAB vs. CineGear EXPO. HUGE diffence in the people attending. Theres no real hollywood guys hanging out at NAB, sure maybe a few here and there, and theres so great fun cool stuff thats really helpful. But the NAB side of thigns is very much on the prosumer side of things in the "Film" world. Whereas CineGear expo is very different. Those are the big toys for the big shoots. Thats the gear used and invented for heavy pro use for feature film and tv that we all watch and love for years and years.

There's just a different level, even "pro" no longer means what it used to. Digital has separated a lot. It used to be everyone just knew 1 thing... Film.. It was the same no matter where you were in the industry. You still had to do the same thing on a low budget set as you did high budget set for film. Now there's people who are cinematographers who've NEVER shot on film. They dont even know where this gear spawned from, and not learning why film is what it is.

I'm very old school if you haven't noticed, and I'm trying to protect the industry I love and work in. Also realize that going cheaper usually means less crew as well, which effects jobs, and lives, and careers, and the whole industry. Keep the cameras big, and on chapman dollys and technocranes and let them be a bit*h to carry so you need assistants and PA's and gear for carts and all of that. Eliminating these things directly eliminates JOBS for the peopel who love what they do.

The digital age kindof snuffs the industry for jobs, and already there's a few positions that got hurt from the digital movement, and its a shame. Keeping the same high quality standards for our cameras in our department is very important. It keeps the quality up, and the best behind the cameras operating, pulling, lugging, and using that gear. Renting those extra parts, ordering more camera carts which all this money goes right back into the industry. It feeds off of this.

My department is not the imaging and I can tell the acquisition too, sometimes even the capture device, brand, model, year of manufacturing so... nobody can say «I am the owner of the truth». But don't put the digital out of the range of 24fps, there's nothing behind the curtain ;-)

The massive industry, the high-end as you call, has been killing the cinema. Not only the internet. Their product, most part, is s*%t. You disdain the indies, but they are who has made the history of filmmaking since the golden days of hollywood, already passed away decades ago. Why? 'cause the high-end guys are the geekest of the geeks. They don't give a damn for aesthetics, they don't even understand the meaning of the word. I am not speaking towards you, of course : ) But "the" industry you praise so much to protect. They are also but definitely NOT 'the' cinema With the due respect (again, I am not inferring you are one of them, I don't even know your name! mercenaries who think they have, but they have no clue about it. They could be selling soap with the same joy, I guess. For some reason, stories became soap operas for such purpose. Saving jobs. Re-invent the 'thing'! I am used to call it work instead. I make it happen, I am not waiting for the ringing sound of the telephone. Since about 20 years ago. And yes, I spend 70% to 90% of my time with boring stuff. Some call it life, others... to survive working with art. Not an inscription in someone else's payroll.

End of rant.

A last note, all my background is old school too