C700: Does anyone actually shoot with the C700?

L

LucasTanakaFilm

New member
I've been looking for content shot on the C700 and there's a very minimal amount.

I'm curious if anyone here has any experience with it?

Someone somewhere has to use it right?



Please share any experience or videos that you've seen shot on it.



Thanks!
 
I've been looking too- not much released beyond Canon's short and a few tests/shorts on YouTube & Vimeo. At that price point it would appears most folks are using ARRI or Red: tried & true. The C700 FF is a different story: full frame and True 4K (5.9K downsampled sensor). With the recent releases of the ARRI LF and Sony VENICE, I think the C700 FF is a compelling option, especially if DPAF would be helpful for the shoot (typically shoots at that level have budgets for a focus puller). Previously, the C700 didn't offer much in IQ above the C300 II. The C700 FF will provide True 4K in full frame: something the ARRI LF can't provide (well below True 4K), and the VENICE still needs work on color science. Apparently DPAF will also work with anamorphic mode (Canon EF native lens + squeeze adapter).

Thinking the C300 III (or whatever is released near that price point) will have the FF sensor. The FF Sony A7 III looks pretty good at $2k.
 
I shot a short film last year on the orginal C700. I know it's used on a handful of TV shows and Netflix series right now. It's a camera they designed for larger crews with 1st and 2nd AC's. The C300 body style can actually slow you down on a bigger set if the AC needs to get on the operator side of the camera every time you need to change a setting.

The body looks cumbersome, but it's actually great to operate. Body is less than 8lbs, I think it's lighter than my C300mkii all rigged up. The EVF was great, but the canon stock rigging on the top was pretty garbage.

Image wise, it's fantastic. It's obviously the same sensor as the C300mkii, but the extra processors in the body allow it to get a much cleaner image. The MK2 can sometimes run into banding issues, none of that issue on the 700. I did some initial tests that convinced me to shoot the short film between 1250 and 3200 ISO.

I like the camera a lot, but I agree with many that it's not camera I'd buy. It's large and warrants a higher rental price than the mk2, but doesn't give me 200fps. I'd pick it over my mk2 for a feature film for sure.

These are some quick grades I did from the short film, admittedly not the best showcase for the camera.

LORD_ZA.00_01_26_03.Still002.jpg
LORD_ZA.00_06_32_06.Still014.jpg
LORD_ZA.00_05_12_17.Still015.jpg
 
Thanks for the info and captures John. I interviewed Russell Carpenter, ASC about his experience shooting the promo film for Canon and he truly loved the camera and I got to shoot some boring test footage of a model, handheld with the Codex back, then the Codex reps took the footage through their on-sight color correction and grading process, that was impressive.

Personally I think the C700 was a case of if Canon had come out with it two years earlier, they could have had a real contender to be at the top echelons but at the time it came out, most people are already entrenched with Arri or RED at that price point, buying or renting. The C700FF gives them a fighting chance at least. I do think that DPAF can be amazing, I've shot dancers several times on the C300 MKII and my C200 when the worlds best AC couldn't have tracked the focus of the whirling and spinning dancers nearly as well without blocking and rehearsal and the DPAF on both cameras nailed it the first time when we didn't even know where and how the dancers were going to move. That could still be valuable on a camera like the C700, even with a 1st and a 2nd hanging out so that's something that the C700FF has that none of it's competition has. At the time, I can see why Canon signed the deal with Codex but moving forward, I think making it the only way to shoot RAW with the camera is now a hindrance, Codex gear and post workflow is a whole different level of cost than shooting RAW on an external recorder or Cinema RAW Light internally. It's a great system but really only features are going to use it, I haven't seen too many episodics want to delve that deep.
 
AlkaliDigital said:
DPAF is one of the greatest developments in camera tech. I hope cinema Lenses start getting af motors :)
Click to expand...


Cinema cameras already have a focusing method far more adept, capable, sophisticated, and intuitive than DPAF. It's a system known as a 1st AC. :D And it can have focus follow dialogue and take focus-rack cues from things as subtle as a facial expression or an exhale from an actor.
 
JPNola said:
Cinema cameras already have a focusing method far more adept, capable, sophisticated, and intuitive than DPAF. It's a system known as a 1st AC. :D And it can have focus follow dialogue and take focus-rack cues from things as subtle as a facial expression or an exhale from an actor.
Click to expand...

Have you used the DPAF on the cinema cameras? It's a tool, not a replacement for somebody controlling focus.
 
DPAF is a good start. At the cinema camera price point, 3D depth maps should be provided so an accurate focus plane can be visualized in real-time, allowing for precise manual AF (very helpful for 4K+). AI assisted eye focus along with AI assisted narrative transitions are also possible. With technology than runs under 1 Watt. On your phone or drone. And exists today (eye tracking already available on consumer cameras). Perhaps stop there before the robots take over everything :)
 
puredrifting said:
Personally I think the C700 was a case of if Canon had come out with it two years earlier, they could have had a real contender to be at the top echelons but at the time it came out, most people are already entrenched with Arri or RED at that price point, buying or renting.p.
Click to expand...

Very much like what happened with the C300mk2, if only it had came out two years earlier...

As by that point is was long gone, and too late, the FS7 was entrenched in place as the #1 choice instead.
 
JPNola said:
Cinema cameras already have a focusing method far more adept, capable, sophisticated, and intuitive than DPAF. It's a system known as a 1st AC. :D And it can have focus follow dialogue and take focus-rack cues from things as subtle as a facial expression or an exhale from an actor.
Click to expand...

Watching content in 4k over the last year or so from TV Shows to Big Budget Movies and seeing how AWFUL the focus pulls are, People should use DPAF more often. Neither of course are perfect and understand the reason to avoid DPAF on a set but wow the focus is off on a ton of films and shows.
 
jcs said:
full frame and True 4K (5.9K downsampled sensor).
Click to expand...

I was really excited about that feature too. But for some idiotic reason (on a camera that otherwise seems well thought out), the only recording options for the downscaled 4k, are 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs - so you're oversampling to get a perfect 4k image, but then throwing away HALF of your colour information... so stupid, and such a wasted opportunity.

The older Canons always seemed to shine best, when they downsampled their 4k sensors into 12-bit 2K 4:4:4. It's a real shame that the C700FF won't do the same going from 6k to 4k.
 
Grug said:
I was really excited about that feature too. But for some idiotic reason (on a camera that otherwise seems well thought out), the only recording options for the downscaled 4k, are 10-bit 4:2:2 codecs - so you're oversampling to get a perfect 4k image, but then throwing away HALF of your colour information... so stupid, and such a wasted opportunity.

The older Canons always seemed to shine best, when they downsampled their 4k sensors into 12-bit 2K 4:4:4. It's a real shame that the C700FF won't do the same going from 6k to 4k.
Click to expand...

Unless there's a bandwidth issue, I don't see a hardware reason why they couldn't offer 4K 12-bit 444 RGB (RGB is important if you want every last bit of information ((lossy) YUV transform not needed since not subsampling color).

I've done a lot of tests with the C300 II, and I've found that 1080p RGB 444 12-bit scales very nicely to 4K (along with sharpening / acutance boosting: few people can tell the difference vs. 4K on "non True 4K" cameras (C300 II, 1DX II etc.)). Other than for 4k upscaling, I haven't found RGB 444 to be provide significant value over 10-bit 422. Perhaps RGB 444 12-bit could help fine blonde hairs with chromakeying or radical color work. For the C700 FF, if one needs such detail for studio work, using an external recorder and RAW output (to 12-bit ProRes 4444XQ) would provide 5.9K for pristine max-detail downsampling to 4K.

Perhaps Canon is holding back RGB 444 12-bit 4K for a future camera? XF-AVC with H.265 would provide at least 50% reduction in file sizes/bandwidth: that's another near-future possibility. GPU decoding makes H.265 viable for direct editing now.
 
jcs said:
...For the C700 FF, if one needs such detail for studio work, using an external recorder and RAW output (to 12-bit ProRes 4444XQ) would provide 5.9K for pristine max-detail downsampling to 4K.
Click to expand...

Have you priced how much the Codex workflow costs? I don't think that anyone except studio features are going to be beating down the door for the C700FF RAW workflow, maybe high end episodic. No way to record RAW without the CODEX system on the 700 or 700FF.
 
What I don't get is uniquely this camera has af and quality codecs

If I shot for high budget for Nike or something I'd be all over this with a 400 2.8 and some sprinters or football stars

Or if I shot lions and tigers for the NHU

Yet canon promote it against the Alexa or suchlike for tired old drama.
 
puredrifting said:
Have you priced how much the Codex workflow costs? I don't think that anyone except studio features are going to be beating down the door for the C700FF RAW workflow, maybe high end episodic. No way to record RAW without the CODEX system on the 700 or 700FF.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the cost tip... $18k+ for Codex + 2 1TB drives is certainly spendy for C200/C300.x indie ops, however for studios used to Red/Alexa prices perhaps not so much? Ultimately production time is more expensive, thus if DPAF (less retakes/reshoots) + low light (less post NR work / lighting* costs (hardware + set up time)) + True 4K (for post punch in, pan, etc.) has value over what Red or ARRI can provide, the C700 FF can be a business win. I've seen a lot of Red footage lately on Netflix (recent cameras, Red Weapon 8K etc.), and I still prefer Alexa highlights (+DR, not buying Red's "17" stops), skin tones, and color. Some shots the Red Weapon 8K looks gorgeous (e.g. Netflix Lost In Space), others skin looks very flat and color is off in ways I don't see with Alexa footage (or film). For full frame (+), Red Monstro and ARRI LF are much more expensive vs. C700 FF, even with Codex + a couple 1 TB drives. To keep costs down, having a DIT on set etc. to convert C700 RAW into ProRes 4444XQ etc. would save in editing storage costs. This would just need to be for the chromakey work and/or extreme grading where tests show some kind of advantage for the extra bits of information / detail. Everything else can be 10-bit 422.

For those with a C200, you can validate/compare 12-bit RGB 444 to 10-bit 422 (YUV) by doing the following: shoot something challenging (for the camera) in 12-bit Rawlite. Then convert to 12-bit 444 RGB as well as 10-bit 422 (YUV). Now bring both the 12-bit RGB 444 and 10-bit 422 into Resolve / PP CC etc. (any NLE where you can edit both formats). Grade the 12-bit RGB 444 clip as desired. Apply the grade to the 10-bit 422 clip. Now place one clip above the other and toggle the top track. Can you see any differences? If so what are they? To go farther, you can do some math: subtract the bottom layer (Blend Mode: Subtract), then massively boost the levels of the result to examine the differences. C300 II owners can simply compare 12-bit RGB 444 transcoded to 10-bit 422 (keep the same bitrate (or higher) to minimize the 1 generation transcode loss).

To the eye, I wouldn't expect much (if any) visual difference between 10-bit 422 and 12-bit RGB 444 except in very extreme grading cases (and possible thin blonde hairs in chromakey or similar). For example, I can't see a visual difference between 1080p 10-bit 422 and 12-bit RGB 444 on the C300 II. In fact, I can't see a visual difference (at normal viewing distances) between the 8-bit 24Mbps YUV 420 proxy footage (WideDR and Canon Log (possibly Canon Log 3 (a little flatter in the highlights)). Canon Log 2 really needs 10- or 12-bits, though in low to medium DR tests 8-bit proxy and Canon Log 2 didn't look too shabby!). Obviously with grading and recompression after editing, we're better off with higher bit rates and 422 or better. Remember the final upload for online viewing is 420 YUV 8-bit.

In summary, for most cases I really wouldn't ding the C700 FF for not having 12-bit RGB 444 in 4K. I suspect it's not available for business reasons: to make the Codex option + drives viable products (note no third party raw recorders will work). If they added 12-bit RGB 444 to the C700 FF 4K, I think folks would do tests and see that there's not enough gain for 12-bit Raw to warrant the extra cost and production time + storage. Certainly Canon (or anyone with access to a C700 FF) could provide real-world test data that proves otherwise.

I spent way too much time figuring out how to get easy and consistently great skin tones out of the C300 II (and it's not using the "ARRI" settings and LUTs (while that can work OK there are some gotchas to be aware of). Along with viewing top-of-the-line skillfully edited Red footage on Netflix, I really understand why ARRI is so popular: it's relatively easy to consistently get great skin tones. I'd rather spend time shooting / editing than messing around with camera settings trying to get decent (consistent!) skin tones in all conditions, exposure levels, and contrast ratios!

* For certain narrative shots, lighting is completely controlled, so that's not a +/- option.
 
Last edited:
The camera definitely hasn't pick up a lot of steam, but it is being used. I think you'll start to see it more as an option against the varicam.

I know Dynasty (I think they are the first) shoots with the 700 and there are quite a few unreleased Netflix shows using right now too.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top