Cinema Camera vs Documentary camera.... which is which?

Amadou

Amadou

Carbonite Member
Pluto used to be a Planet until they decided it was not really a Planet. ...until they took close pictures of it and it turned out to look like a planet... but was still not considered a planet....

This brings us to cameras... if you go to the Sony website they list the cameras under three categories: Cinema, documentary and broadcast... what the hell? This obviously opens up the Pluto situation. What are the criteria which determines whether a camera is a documentary or a cinema camera? I keep hearing things such as Ursa is a cinema camera....FS7 is not a cinema camera... etc.... Insofar as RAW has become more commonplace than shoe laces... who's to say the FS7 is a documentary camera and the Ursa Blackmagic a cinema camera? Don't tell me it's the internal ND. :)
 
Cinema cameras tend to be primarily aimed at full manual everything, little or no rolling shutter, RAW as at least an option, typically provide extra controls/support for an AC or two, provide a standard film-like look with smooth highlight and black roll off, excellent skin tones, easy post manipulation for any desired look, highest dynamic range on the market (when new), and are more expensive. This is why Alexa/Amira are so popular with cinema productions. Cinema cameras are also typically very power hungry and relatively large and heavy, though the trend is moving toward smaller and lighter cameras (Arri Mini is #1 rental now, Red keeps things somewhat small & light, Sony's new VENICE is much smaller/lighter vs. the previous flagship, the F65, though still somewhat large and heavy).

Are Blackmagic cameras cinema cameras? Yes, however BM cameras have a much narrower range of operation vs. say ARRI, Red, Sony, and Panasonic cinema cameras. Less dynamic range, lower quality control (appears to be improving), not as good color science (though recent releases are looking pretty good), not as good highlights, and poor low light and lower dynamic range. So you can save money on the camera(s) if you can efficiently control light to keep the camera in its sweet spot.

Documentary cameras tend to be smaller, lighter, use far less power / longer battery life, tend to use stabilized zooms, can rely on auto-focus in addition to manual focus by the camera operator (no AC), don't need AC support controls, provide much better low light performance (since lighting in many cases won't be controlled at all), built-in NDs, provide highly compressed files to lower storage burden, have decent dynamic range, decent color/skin tones though highlight performance isn't a priority, are much lower cost.

When the budget & crew is available, Alexa mini would likely be the camera choice for typical documentary work. When the budget is restricted, anything goes, even an iPhone. Sound still needs to be decent quality, though even Sound Devices recorders are relatively low cost compared to cameras (e.g. MixPre3 for $649). The Canon C200, C300 II, and FS5x, FS7x are all popular documentary cameras when shooting compressed H.264 variants (some 10+ bit). These same cameras can shoot RAW, and the C300 II can also shoot 12-bit RGB 444 (in addition to RAW and ProRes RAW), which allows the cameras to be used in lower budget cinema productions (and B & C cameras next to Alexas in cinema productions).

In other thread, folks argued that the Sony F55 isn't a cinema camera (it's a "TV camera"). I've studied the F55 footage, including where it's matching Alexa footage in a studio (very well), as well as many shows on Netflix, and it can look cinematic or not depending on how it's used: how the shots are lit and how the footage is processed in post. Sony combined the F65 color filters and the smaller/lighter design concepts of the F55 to create the new VENICE, which looks like it can be a serious competitor to the Alexa. I've seen cinematic and video-look footage from both the VENICE as well as the new Alexa LF. Clearly both cameras can look cinematic when using the appropriate lenses, diffusion filters, lighting, and post color work.

Any camera can be used for any purpose- how they typically get used in practice is where labeling them cinema or documentary (+commercial, +television, +corporate), could make sense.
 
The FS7 can work OK as a cinema camera, it's just not as suited for typical cinema production with a full crew vs. other cameras. For a smaller production, it can work perfectly fine. The FS7 (I) had an issue with RAW color-depth/DR (not clear if it was fixed). Both the FS7 I/II support 12-bit RAW, so that should allow typical RAW flexibility in post as expected for a cinema production with a lot of post work. While this can work fine, the more expensive cameras will look better with a lot less work in post. Sony has been slowly improving their color science, and the FS5 II has new color filters along with the VENICE color science. From the limited FS5 II demos online, skin tones look really good, right up there with Canon (and 6K VENICE camera right up there with the Alexa LF). After owning the Sony FS700, A7S I, A7S II, and seeing the VENICE color science on the 6K VENICE and FS5 II, if the A7S III gets the VENICE color science, that's going to be an amazing camera for lower budget shoots. Even now, I'd recommend the A7 III over the FS7 for lower end shoots, just because the color science looks pretty good (6K VENICE is even better). I've seen some examples of a VENICE 3D LUT from Sony: doesn't look nearly as good as the new cameras with VENICE color filters + the new color science (color filters are key).

As always, once budget is determined, rent/borrow and test cameras in the budget range to find the best fit for the production. The FS7 still provides slomo options (including via RAW) not provided by other cameras in the price range, and perhaps certain aspects of the FS7 make more sense vs. similar cameras. Only way to know for sure is to test a few cameras. If slomo isn't an issue, the C200 shooting RAWLite is probably the best bang-for buck right now. DPAF is super useful for smaller productions, and being able to shoot RAW internally is also helpful (and there are now lower cost 256GB CFAST 2.0 cards that are reported to work well). If your production doesn't need or want RAW, the C300 II's internal codecs, especially the 4K 10-bit 422 and 12-bit RGB 444 XFAVC codecs are efficient and provide decent quality. The FS7 I/II also have decent 10-bit 422 H.264 codecs, however the color science is a bit more work for skin tones, for example, vs. Canon.
 
End yet, while all whats been said is completely true, I will tell you a simple truth that questions previosly said truth:
If we would have the way to count it, I am sure that we would count how most movies (cinema) today are shot on a cameras that have none of the cinema camera properties listed above. Namely Canon 5D, Sonys AR and AS, PAnasonic GH line...

Don't listen to SONY or any other manufacturer for that matter.
They want you to BUY stuff from them. They don't want you to DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO (shoot movies). And because of such goals they are willing to confurse user with their nomeculature. Yes, their divisions have some sense, but as a whole is wrong! And their advice is like when my friend tell me that his buddy has a PROFESSIONAL camera!?!?!?! WTF does that mean???!!! (Flame stating possible here :)


The most accurate definition, from the usage stand point is:

-Documentary camera is one that delivers acceptable quality by being used with as least as possible number of users (idealy 1 person).
-Cinema camera it the one that provides acceptable quality by being used by the most amount of users possible (as many as possible).
-Broadcast is a camera that provides acceptable quality with image that can be broadcast as soon as possible and that fitts in a budget of a broadcaster.

I can elaborate on this, but what I just said is probably already on the edge of pissing off many people so I will stop here.
But take my words and process them and the Truth will speak to you :)
(it helps when you been on all sides: both camera crew person for big will producer or when you areindie on its own; its funy how all these definitions can stretch depending on who writes the checks!)

Sony F7 can be used to shoot Cinema. It demands as many handlers as a cinema camera and provides a result better (sort of mostly...) then DSLR/Mirrorless cameras. You can get great results with it, but working with it will not be as elegant as shooting with Alexa. Plus, crew will look down on you, and others will "torture" you more.
 
Publimix said:
Hi Amadou, my advice, use the best camera you can afford. That is all there is to say.
Click to expand...

What a person "can afford" is often half or less of what they really think they can "afford".

Because main newbies miss out many of the gotchas and accessories and other areas which they still have to spend money on after they've purchased their brand new camera.
 
Maest said:
End yet, while all whats been said is completely true, I will tell you a simple truth that questions previosly said truth:
If we would have the way to count it, I am sure that we would count how most movies (cinema) today are shot on a cameras that have none of the cinema camera properties listed above. Namely Canon 5D, Sonys AR and AS, PAnasonic GH line...
…
Click to expand...
What makes you being sure about it? Do you have any data to support your assumption?
 
Can't you read more carefully?! I said:

"..If we would have the way to count it..."

Meaning NO, I don't have a bloody data. And neither do people who should and could have. Or they do but are unwilling to share it publicly (hmmmm wonder why...?)

The closest you can get as a mortal is a pathetic rapports from places like Sundance FF who claims, that in around 300 movies that are accepted and had screenings on fastivals in 2015-2018, around 50% is shot on Alexa. But they don't say what other ~15.000 (yes that fifteen thousand) movies that are submitted but not accepted, were using as their camera!? And I highly doub that they used Alexas, Reds, F35s etc...But I am sure most of them used inexpensive DSLRs, because in my immediate surroundings ther is one guy who shoot his feature on Alexa and 4 people who shot their features on canon 5D. Savyy!?

And please dude, spare me on data and maths....

Ever since accounting nerds and pixel peepers got into movie making, we have people like Reid, Yurev and Kai been top advisors to whole generation of young filmmakers, as to what cameras should be used for their filmamaking!?!?!?!?!?!?!
For some reason words of Fransis Ford Coppola don't carry equal weight. Again, I wonder why...?
I mean, what track record or made masterpieces under their belt have such icons of filmmaking like Tony Northrup?!?!


Not to mention that you are asking for impossibe, that is for Industry's achile heel to be revealed!
Hollywood data is less transparent and bigger secret then biz practices of off shore companies...
If info from industry publications would have been crossed with real data from the field, everybody would have been in a big and unpleasant SURPRIZE!
 
My admitedly observational experience (i.e no hard data to back it up) is this...narrative fiction movies/shows that are “legit” are almost always shot on higher end cams like Alexas and Reds. Docs can be pretty much on anything ‘cause the content is way more imprtant than the production values, UP TO A POINT. This all tends to correlate with the those “legit” productions having proper funding in place, experienced talent in front of and behind the camera, and professional writers involved. The high end cameras go right along with that, is what I’m saying. It is very rare (NOT unheard of, but far from the norm) that you will have the pro talent, funding, etc. and they choose to shoot a NARRATIVE piece on a DSLR or lower end camcorder. That just seems to be how it is.

You can ASSUME safely that when you see a Facebook group/job at looking for crew/actors to work on a fictional narrative project that is shooting on a DSLR, or requesting the DP provide a cam package that is a DSLR, that the project will probably be hot garbage. The FS7s, C300M2s etc. being used on those types of projects mean you are probably looking at something that will be technically competent but with story/content that is “meh”/forgettable.

Notice there are a lot of “probably”s and similar words in there. That’s ‘cause,again, in my observation it is most likely true. I am sort of throwing myself under the bus here as well cause I am definitely working with lower tier cams on any project I do, and I am ok with that.
 
Maest said:
…
... But I am sure most of them used inexpensive DSLRs, because in my immediate surroundings ther is one guy who shoot his feature on Alexa and 4 people who shot their features on canon 5D. Savyy!?
…
Click to expand...
What's the budget range of those features being shot with Canon 5D?
 
Josh Bass said:
My admitedly observational experience (i.e no hard data to back it up) is this...narrative fiction movies/shows that are “legit” are almost always shot on higher end cams like Alexas and Reds. Docs can be pretty much on anything ‘cause the content is way more imprtant than the production values, UP TO A POINT. This all tends to correlate with the those “legit” productions having proper funding in place, experienced talent in front of and behind the camera, and professional writers involved. The high end cameras go right along with that, is what I’m saying. It is very rare (NOT unheard of, but far from the norm) that you will have the pro talent, funding, etc. and they choose to shoot a NARRATIVE piece on a DSLR or lower end camcorder. That just seems to be how it is.

You can ASSUME safely that when you see a Facebook group/job at looking for crew/actors to work on a fictional narrative project that is shooting on a DSLR, or requesting the DP provide a cam package that is a DSLR, that the project will probably be hot garbage. The FS7s, C300M2s etc. being used on those types of projects mean you are probably looking at something that will be technically competent but with story/content that is “meh”/forgettable.

Notice there are a lot of “probably”s and similar words in there. That’s ‘cause,again, in my observation it is most likely true. I am sort of throwing myself under the bus here as well cause I am definitely working with lower tier cams on any project I do, and I am ok with that.
Click to expand...

In my observational experience I agree with your observational experiences.
 
Joshua_G said:
What's the budget range of those features being shot with Canon 5D?
Click to expand...


Don't know...It wasn't me who wrote the checks ad I don't realy trust their word...
But you can ask them yourself next time you see them!
Even though I don't understand what does that have to do with anything we are talking about here?! But I guess you do....
 
Maest said:
Don't know...It wasn't me who wrote the checks ad I don't realy trust their word...
But you can ask them yourself next time you see them!
Even though I don't understand what does that have to do with anything we are talking about here?! But I guess you do....
Click to expand...

It boils down to the fact that indeed, there are many people shooting low-budget and no-budget films on DSLRs. From that, to jump to a conclusion that there are more films with proper budget being shot on DSLRs than on proper cinema cameras is erroneous, to say the list. More so when it's based on what someone with unknown reliability wrote somewhere. It's like saying that most professional photographers shoot on smartphone, when based only on the fact that there are more people taking pictures with smartphones that with DSLRs.
 
"I mean, what track record or made masterpieces under their belt have such icons of filmmaking like Tony Northrup?!?!"
Man! That cracked me up, because I know exactly what you mean!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top