Interview with Canon's Larry Thorpe on C300 - Explains a lot

[Rick Burnett]

This seems to be a problem with a you know who... regarding the C300, the four teams that shot with it, didn't complain about anything. Nothing. Of course they might be biased since they were shooting for Canon, but still, LaForet blogs regularly and was extremely happy with how the camera performed and how easy it was to work with. There are also behind the scenes on every single film.

Same with the Alexa. Besides me, having shot with it a few times and never, ever had any issue whatsoever, no other DP I care to read about, has complained over anything.

Same story for the Sony F35.

So, the issues you are mentioning, reliability and honest technical information only belongs to this OTHER company. And this is no secret, its all very well documented, especially the overheating issues, reliability and the incorrect (or misleading) technical specs.

No need to all the sudden turn this around to the new kid on the block!

Where have you ever seen the other company have this sort of technical interviews to the public, or made available to everyone? Never. Every time they care to talk, its all about selling it, how great it is and how many Ks it shoots, and whatnot. Never in depth tech talk.

It's not just a problem with one manufacturer. My AF100 went bad on a shoot, destroyed all the footage I shot with it. The resolution of the built in display was too low to see it, but on a full resolution screen, I saw it all. I had to send it in and was without it for a few weeks. This is an isolated incident obviously, but you can imagine me being nervous about it when I shot after that.

Had the AF100 done this a week earlier with a VERY EXPENSIVE car crash scene, imagine what that would have cost if they wan't to reshoot the scene?

All the people that shot with the AF100 pre-production model raved about how well it worked. I don't remember them complaining about it either. Yet, on the other hand, there are scores of people that the AF100 is just not right for them. Nothing wrong with that.

And, let's be honest, even though it's a stills camera, the 5D, 7D etc have heat problems. So it's not like Canon as a whole hasn't experienced those issues before as well in a shipping product.

The point of the statement wasn't specifically about only reliability, but about technical issues being important to the people who work on a production that are responsible for the technical side. I just happen to do both with who I work with, but, not everyone here is a cinematographer. Not everyone here is the DP. As I've said over and over, if *I* am going to be the camera operator, I am going to *know* that camera inside and out. I don't want to tell the director I can get a shot that I can't do. Or, that looks bad. If you've got an extremely low light scene, from what you've heard from many people, isn't using an Epic sensor a red flag? It's something to consider, something you need to be aware of, and a sign of a competent camera operator. It doesn't mean the camera is faulty, it just has limits, like ALL hardware.

 

[Piolet]

Did you miss this sentence in my post:

"Granted, this information is definitely intended for non-engineers, but it really bothers me when people throw out a bunch of technical information that doesn't make sense. "

No, I didn't miss this. But from your tone and your own words, you are upset and feel they are spinning this tech info on purpose for marketing reasons. I disagree because it's just as plausible that he's trying to simplify things for a casual audience or not give away proprietary information.

And once the camera is released, it won't be a trade secret anymore as I plan on measuring it to like I've done with all the cameras I've gotten my hands on. It's an easy test and not subjective.

That's not what I was referring to as proprietary or a trade secret.

I'm sorry, there is a lot of marketing spin trying to explain certain technologies as if they were something new. Super Green? EVERY bayer pattern sensor has 2x green. EVERY bayer sensor has the same sampling resolution density (albiet different pixel sizes). These things are being touted as revolutionary, but it's the same thing we see in all modern designs. That's called spin.

I think you're just taking it the wrong way--perhaps too seriously. They never ever said the basic Bayer pattern was "revolutionary." You're putting words in his mouth now. In every interview, he has said it's the same Bayer pattern. They've only said the readout is different and that's entirely true. Here is a quote from the Imaging-Resources.com interview:

I'll try to give a very quick and simple explanation today, and that is, it's what we call the "Bayer" pattern. So the red, green, blue are coded like all the other cameras that are out there. For all those other cameras, for them to then reconstruct the red, green, blue, as separate videos that they can process, they have to de-Bayer. That's a very complex, algorithmic based process, because what you're trying to do is -- when you see the blue, it's what we call "sparsely sampled," it's got all those empties -- you've got to fill those missing pixels in blue and red and green, and that's done by a very high computational algorithm that's sucking from each of them and doing averaging, and plugging them in. So, it's a reconstruction, and it can't be perfect. The more horsepower you put in, more expense, or if you do it in post and non-realtime, you can make it very good.

Those cameras that are out there -- the Reds, the Sonys, Alexas -- they're all doing a very good job. But we said we'll skin the cat another way: We'll make a 4K sensor, but that allows us to in that Bayer pattern -- there will be a full 1,920 x 1,080 blue, a full 1,920 x 1,080 red, and effectively two greens. So, we lift them up by readout, because with a CMOS sensor, you're able to readout the pixel if your architecture's correct; so we're able to identify the blues, pull them out, simultaneously pull out the red, and simultaneously pull out the two greens. They come out, out of our sensor comes four wires with four signals on them; then we add the two greens to make a "super-green," and we come out of the sensor red, green, blue -- 4, 4, 4 -- and no contamination of reconstruction. They're absolutely pure, perfect.

To me everything he has said has been fair and honest. I can't believe you're making a big deal out of this.

In fact, other than size which I do think is amazing, the only revolutionary thing I see that I've not heard anyone else doing yet is that they read red/blue/green out in parallel. That's it. Everything else is tried and true technology that has already existed, and most of it, for some time.

Again, they never said the Bayer pattern was brand new. They have only talked about the readout. But you're also jumping to conclusions. How do you know "everything else is tried and true technology"? You don't know what they did at the chip level circuitry. Only Canon knows that. Even then, this whole discussion is rather academic. The only thing that matters is the results--what is the camera putting out.

 

[Rick Burnett]

No, I didn't miss this. But from your tone and your own words, you are upset and feel they are spinning this tech info on purpose for marketing reasons. I disagree because it's just as plausible that he's trying to simplify things for a casual audience or not give away proprietary information.



That's not what I was referring to as proprietary or a trade secret.



I think you're just taking it the wrong way--perhaps too seriously. They never ever said the basic Bayer pattern was "revolutionary." You're putting words in his mouth now. In every interview, he has said it's the same Bayer pattern. They've only said the readout is different and that's entirely true. Here is a quote from the Imaging-Resources.com interview:



To me everything he has said has been fair and honest. I can't believe you're making a big deal out of this.



Again, they never said the Bayer pattern was brand new. They have only talked about the readout. But you're also jumping to conclusions. How do you know "everything else is tried and true technology"? You don't know what they did at the chip level circuitry. Only Canon knows that. Even then, this whole discussion is rather academic. The only thing that matters is the results--what is the camera putting out.

Absolutely it aggravates me, because if you are going to get to the level of 'milliseconds' in your discussion, and other quoted specs, at least make sense of them. I mean, talking about side-bands canceling out aliasing? That's some pretty deep technical characteristics right there. Again, I'm not asking for them to reveal their trade secrets. But, if you are going to be bringing in technical points about something, actually be technical and not throw around technical information that makes no sense. And yes, that's marketing. Give as much information as you can to distinguish yourself from competition, but not enough to let out trade secrets to protect your IP. Like I said, with the ISO16K footage, I see LOTS of FPN in the image. So to make a statement about FPN being a huge problem, where? I've NEVER heard someone complain about FPN on the Epic, Alexa, FS100, AF100, F3 or any of the Canon DSLR. In fact, the ONLY place I've heard of it is with the GH1 and to an extent the GH2. Or their claim that the noise looks organic. It doesn't. Not if the noise looks like what it does on the ISO16K clip. It has the same noise signature as the the other DSLR Canon sensors, albiet at a finer resolution. It's HEAVILY chromatic. The most organic like noise I've seen is in the AF100 when not overly sharpened. Not that it is perfect, but it looks much more similar to the grain I've seen in film.

To quote fdtime.com, which is quoting Larry Thorpe:

“The sensor is revolutionary in that it employs classic Bayer RGB color encoding of the single sensor photosites – but does not employ traditional demosaicing algorithms to decode these three video components. Rather it capitalizes on the dexterity of CMOS sensors that allow access to individual pixels to facilitate a novel extraction methodology that separately readouts the three sampling lattices of the RGB optoelectronic transformation.

The Canon CMOS sensor is new. It uses a unique Bayer pattern, but we don’t de-Bayer, we reach down to the pixel level. So there are 1920 Red photosites, 1920 Blue, and 2x 1920 Green photosites. The green streams come from the sensor in parallel, and there’s a ½ pixel offset between the 2 green signals, h and v. This cancels aliasing, and provides very high MTF.”

1) Unique bayer pattern? How? They've shown it as a Bayer pattern, like every other bayer pattern. That's like saying this '1' is a unique '1'

2) Green is offset per pixel if you claim a pixel is 4 adjacent sites, but what about red/blue? Canon is NOTORIOUS for red/blue aliasing/moire. Clearly it will be SUPERIOR to Canon DSLRs, but will it be completely free of it? That depends on the OLPF more than anything.

If Red wanted too, they could generate the EXACT same type of construction of an image off their sensor, say from a 4K window, without making a single hardware change since it's not baked in. It doesn't mean the quality is the same, but the sensor isn't providing something special that another sensor, today, can't employ the same techique of image building, including the Scarlet-X. Nothing.

They call the sensor revolutionary, but why? Because you read your 3 colors out separately? I'm more interested in how they got the sensitivity to ISO800, to me THAT is WAY more impressive.

 

[GeorgeWalkley]

What a 'lame" way of jumping into a market. They did it "fast" to get something out? Wow, that is disappointing. Not trying to diss them too much but with all the other cameras out there and having success, they really could have come out with something stunning. If they spent the money and time to show us what they have, then, they really could have shown us something worth waiting for. In the meantime, F3's and FS-100's are selling quite nicely

 

[dustylense]

1) Unique bayer pattern? How? They've shown it as a Bayer pattern, like every other bayer pattern. That's like saying this '1' is a unique '1'

2) Green is offset per pixel if you claim a pixel is 4 adjacent sites, but what about red/blue? Canon is NOTORIOUS for red/blue aliasing/moire. Clearly it will be SUPERIOR to Canon DSLRs, but will it be completely free of it? That depends on the OLPF more than anything.


They call the sensor revolutionary, but why? Because you read your 3 colors out separately? I'm more interested in how they got the sensitivity to ISO800, to me THAT is WAY more impressive.

Maybe it's something you think you understand but really don't. ya know we can make 4 cylinder engines that out perform 6 cylinders in both efficiency and horsepower, right. That car that just went 450 mph is a 4 cylinder engine. It's call technological advancements. Canon MAKES their own sensors. They have given you the basics behind it, and I'm sure white papers will be released with more info on it. But because some interviewer gets a basic answer to the tech behind it, you seem to get all fussed about it and question it.
Rick, you're a pretty technical guy, we can all see that. But really, Canon has a pretty large R&D program and I'm sure they know what they are doing and in steps. Kinda like 450mph 4 cylinder engines. Or 265 horsepower 4 cylinder engines in consumer vehicles. Or I7 and I9 processors. Technology advances. THe Leica m8 sensor has angled photosites to accommodate the short flange distance of the camera. Technological advancements and solutions. 0101000011100011101011111. On off on off on off off off on. Thats pretty simple yeah? But does it all work that way these days?

 

[Piolet]

I mean, talking about side-bands canceling out aliasing? That's some pretty deep technical characteristics right there. Again, I'm not asking for them to reveal their trade secrets. But, if you are going to be bringing in technical points about something, actually be technical and not throw around technical information that makes no sense.

Well, I disagree. He's an engineer and sometimes he probably gets excited about the tech and throws out some technical terms without explaining in depth. This is normal for a lot of engineers. I'm just thankful for what information he has generously provided. I don't understand all of it so I'm not going to argue over it. But personally I don't feel spun, slighted or misled in any way by Mr. Thorpe with the information he has provided.

To quote fdtime.com, which is quoting Larry Thorpe...

“The sensor is revolutionary in that it employs classic Bayer RGB color encoding of the single sensor photosites – but does not employ traditional demosaicing algorithms to decode these three video components. Rather it capitalizes on the dexterity of CMOS sensors that allow access to individual pixels to facilitate a novel extraction methodology that separately readouts the three sampling lattices of the RGB optoelectronic transformation.

The Canon CMOS sensor is new. It uses a unique Bayer pattern, but we don’t de-Bayer, we reach down to the pixel level. So there are 1920 Red photosites, 1920 Blue, and 2x 1920 Green photosites. The green streams come from the sensor in parallel, and there’s a ½ pixel offset between the 2 green signals, h and v. This cancels aliasing, and provides very high MTF.”

1) Unique bayer pattern? How? They've shown it as a Bayer pattern, like every other bayer pattern. That's like saying this '1' is a unique '1'

That's true he used the word "unique Bayer pattern" here. I don't know why he said that. Maybe he meant the Bayer pattern itself is unique compared to other patterns? I don't know. But he of all people should know what a Bayer pattern is. Besides, go up two sentences in that same quote and he says it's a "classic Bayer"!! Also, in every other interview he has said it's a classic Bayer! It seems like you're just looking for anything to make something out of this when it's not.

If there's anyone who knows about digital camera design, it's Larry Thorpe. He worked at Sony for over 20 years. You can check out his series with John Galt from Panavision on Demystifying Digital Cinema Camera Specifications. There's a ton of science in that presentation and even then it was toned down for a non-engineer audience.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Of course I am going to question it, that's what any sane person would do making business decisions about an investment in hardware. Why would anyone NOT question a company about the claims they make about something you are interested in? Just because some people think that the C300 is the best thing since sliced bread doesn't invalidate other opinions, which there are many, that it has a lot of disappointments. If you are thankful for the information being provided, or think this is the most amazing thing you've ever seen, I'm happy for you. I truly am. But *I* am not going to feel thankful because a corporation spends time explaining their technology to me. They are only doing it to garner interest in their products, I mean, this is nothing new, and not something I feel Canon is doing any different than any other product release lately with cameras.

Just like Consumer Reports exists for a reason, so do many people that take the time to devour information they can get their hands on and provide 3rd party opinions about. Companies send me their equipment as well and ask me to evaluate it. I send back VERY detailed information from a variety of levels. I'm 100% honest with the good and the bad, both to the manufacturer and to potential consumers who want to know my evaluation.

I'm *one* viewpoint. Certainly one should ALWAYS look at multiple viewpoints. Nigel Cooper didn't like the buttons on the FS100, and yet, I think they are better than what was on my AF100. We disagree on that point, but, I still value many of his reviews because we have different tastes. I use it, along with many other people like Alan Roberts, Adam Wilt, Barry Green, Vincent LaForet and Phillip Bloom just to name a few. And I definitely do not always agree with all of them. But I respect their opinions.

If you don't like my opinions on the C300 and the technology being presented, or the specifications being quoted, I'm not asking you to. This is a 'forum' not a 'blog' where people discuss things. People are posting quotes, links, interviews to information about the C300. I am giving an opinion on that information, and calling out what doesn't make sense.

I think Canon is trying to market their product and garner interest. In my opinion, adding a bunch of highly technical jargon just obfuscates the description making the less technical just nod their head (and I hope you noticed what I did there)

 

[Nuno Dias]

Obviously most people expected a lot more from this camera. And few people are passionate to tell the world their opinions about it, or at least, to convince everyone else of why this camera doesn't, and shouldn't, meet anybody's standards.

And how expensive it is...

But Larry keeps saying that what they didn't want to do was enter the pissing contest. All they want, tis time, is to enter the industry. The industry already owned by Arri, Red and Panavision. That's all.

And they will.

I remember of how heated some discussions were when Red One came out. People who bought it, or liked it, were dead set to defend it. But looking back now, its obvious, even to those who defend it, of how horrible it looked. Even compared to its biggest rival, a stills camera...! But still they were able to break into the industry, and now, they have a much better camera/sensor.

Sure, Canon, for whatever reason is acting conservative. Maybe its Larry's bosses, those old farts in Japan that don't understand the film industry and have only ever dealt with a very different market, stills cameras. Whatever reason it might be, its up to them to survive in the business, and sure enough, they seem to be taking the right steps to assure this will happen.

The C300 is no specs glory box, but it sure delivers an image, capable of dealing with various cinematic needs. That, its not subjective. And only the future will tell if people respond to the camera. Not DSLR consumers, but the industry.

Count any pixel you want. Scrutinise all you want, it won't make a bit of difference if the camera starts to make the DP's tech lists.

And something tells me it will. Big time.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Maybe it's something you think you understand but really don't. ya know we can make 4 cylinder engines that out perform 6 cylinders in both efficiency and horsepower, right. That car that just went 450 mph is a 4 cylinder engine. It's call technological advancements. Canon MAKES their own sensors. They have given you the basics behind it, and I'm sure white papers will be released with more info on it. But because some interviewer gets a basic answer to the tech behind it, you seem to get all fussed about it and question it.
Rick, you're a pretty technical guy, we can all see that. But really, Canon has a pretty large R&D program and I'm sure they know what they are doing and in steps. Kinda like 450mph 4 cylinder engines. Or 265 horsepower 4 cylinder engines in consumer vehicles. Or I7 and I9 processors. Technology advances. THe Leica m8 sensor has angled photosites to accommodate the short flange distance of the camera. Technological advancements and solutions. 0101000011100011101011111. On off on off on off off off on. Thats pretty simple yeah? But does it all work that way these days?

Maybe you really don't know what I know, or what my technical expertise are? I mean, as I've mentioned before, I have 16 years of CMOS design. I've designed processors for video cameras. I've worked with cinema camera manufacturers. Currently I work on designs at the 20nm node, that are bleeding edge, high performance and low power. I've worked on designs for EXTREMELY expensive low yield parts to ultra cheap high yield parts. I've got a masters in Microelectronic engineering, and I've a minor in advanced graphics programming. No, I am no Graeme Nattress, but I'm willing to talk about my background more if it helps you to understand just how long I've been in the CMOS design world.

I work on microprocessors, so believe me, I have FIRST HAND experience in how they evolve through technology and fabrication changes. I also understand scope creep, target markets, and most importantly, getting a product out the door to beat the competition. This is all stuff I have 16 years of experience with. Even further, I've worked with a vast number of large corporations, just like Canon, to have even further insight into both the product development, R&D, and finally to see how the company presented the information to the consumer. So I think I can say, I have quite a bit of precedence in seeing trends/actions/history when it comes to product launches.

Just because Canon says something is "revolutionary" doesn't instantly make it so. Canon is not infallible, they make mistakes just like other companies. Like the first firmware update for the 7D due to the ghost image problem. If they were perfect, they'd not need to have firmware updating capability in the first place.

Let me just reiterate for you, I really do like the C300. As I've said, it has some disappointments with the design, and the price, but it's a great direction and produces some great results.

 

[dustylense]

Rick, I come from a stills photography commercial background. 20 years of it. Im my early days (and as a student) I spent countless hours testing film, process, making chemicals and measuring curves, toes, filmbase +fog. I'm glad I did it. It helped me understand more. But it wasn't until I put that mentality on the shelf that I saw my photography advance visually. All the tech got in the way of the creative process (which is highly subjective in the end). In my student days, I would be spending a day plotting a curve while another student would walk by with a gorgeous print. I would ask, "how did you do that? What process did you use"? The answer was, "I don't know, what does it matter"? I asked her if she wanted to be able to control her process. She replied with a portfolio that got her a full ride to the Art Center of Pasadena. It was all consistent, gorgeous, and very advanced visually. The context was the final verdict. I'm still friends with her today. She is a VERY successful fashion photographer. She cares less about plotting curves and lets her work and ideas dictate her success. Her tests are using the process in real life and developing a look. Another friend I work with and quite often (www.sebreephoto.com, I suggest looking at his portfolio) could give a flying s**t about anything technical. He has a masters in engineering and turned to photography because he hated numbers. I got him to stop shooting jepg's and turn to RAW, that is how much he could care about process. ( in 2 weeks I join him on his shoot to run motion for his front page campaign with J-Lo) Another in my network of friends and that I schooled with (www.tobypederson.com, again look at his portfolio and clients) cares less about RGB's and tech talk. In fact, you mention it with him and he says, "just shoot". He once bought a $45,000 system for a shoot because client demanded it. After he was done, he sold that system for $1 because he didn't like the workflow that slowed him down.

What's my point? The top levels usually care about the feeling of the image in terms of context and not RBG's and processors. Sure, they will compare a camera to the next and pick a system that will end with a result. But they point them at subjects and not charts. THey look at the image and say, "Yep, this will work". They probably have no idea what a "white paper" is. I've adopted their philosophy and have never felt more free. I specialize in shooting design and architecture (i'm moving away from it, but I have a large client base that I cater too so I continue to fill my schedule in doing so). My sets have sometimes 60 lights in them, sometimes 3. Lot's of control variable I have to deal with. But when I let the RGB's take back seat, I find the work I produce is more rewarding.

So guys. Take your camera, tune it to work for you but don't over think it. Go out and shoot. Shoot something, anything. Just to develop your eye and mind for images. All I care about these days with the cameras is just don't alias and don't moire. The rest is context.
Remember this film (on of my favorites)? http://www.makingthefilm.com/interview8.html

 

[Rick Burnett]

But you have to agree that everyone approaches their craft differently, and while to some the end result is what matters, the process of getting there has relevance to the happiness of the individual doing it? What works for you, and what makes you happy is specific to you, or the experiences of those that you work with, that have shared them with you. But it doesn't have to be so polar in terms of what you concentrate on that is important. When I'm on set shooting, I am not thinking about this technical stuff, that's for when I am sitting at my computer or testing a piece of gear. When I'm on set I am thinking about the composition, the lighting, what the director is trying to accomplish. The technical aspect is the LAST part because I've already thought that part through, when I was in a position where I didn't need to be artistic.

I absolutely agree that shooting on a camera is THE ONLY way to know if that camera is right for you. I can say with absolute certainty that NO review/presentation/white paper has EVER told the whole story to me. How could it? But when we don't have the camera, the next best thing is to start devouring the information we do have.

Let me put this perspective to you, I do VFX work with After Effects, Maya and Blender. Sometimes motion. For me, image quality plays a HUGE role in rotoscoping, blending of 3D material, matchmove software, etc. Noise, chroma sub-sampling, aliasing, moire, etc, these are all HUGE to me. For me to just assume a camera is going to work well for this is something I cannot do. I've done all of these to footage from the 7D, AF100 and FS100. Each of these cameras produces information at the pixel level that has challenges I have to overcome when doing VFX. For you, if you don't shoot for VFX needs, then you are looking at different aspects of the image. For me, I have to be even more stringent.

Just like 1080p60, or 1080p21 which I use for filming martial arts scenes for different reasons. Or stunts. Or a whole lot of things. It's not just for music videos or commercials. While I use it sparingly, having it there has been a huge plus on the AF100 or FS100. Sure, I could rent a Phantom, but why would I want that? There is no greater joy to me than having the same camera used for ALL the material on a production. Matching 7D footage to FS100 footage was a pain in the neck. The resolution difference alone was HUGELY noticeable.

I'm not saying any of these things are important for you, but I'm saying that on a big production, these technical limitations of a camera do require some thought. Just like was mentioned about the Epic and it's low light capabilities and how some do not like it. I've not used the Epic so I can't say if that is true or not, but if Phillip Bloom says it is, I'd be inclined to believe him. Doesn't mean the Epic is a bad camera, it just has a limitation.

Just like for you alias and moire is important. I couldn't agree more They drive me CRAZY. But I would add rolling shutter as well

I think the big thing to recognize is that we all have VERY varied backgrounds, VERY varied needs, VERY varied price brackets, and VERY varied methods for doing what we do. Art comes in many shapes, forms and paths

 

[dustylense]

Rick, look at my Avatar. What is it you see? A green screen, right? Look closer at who is the subject. That is Michael C. Hall, or more commonly known as Dexter. This was part of Sebree's Dexter season 6 promo. The client wanted some green screen motion and was strongly requesting it be shot on 5dmk2. Now we all know it can happen, right? Green screen on 5D. I asked Sebree that maybe we should rent the RED. We passed this by client and they said, "absolutely NOT"! I convinced them to shoot it on my Af100 then. They kept pushing 5dMk2, but I finally won with the Af100. Afterwards we contacted the guys that received the footage and they said "all is good, pulling nice keys". But I found out that they were the ones that asked for 5dMK2 and denied the RED rental capture. In the end, Sebree and I didn't care less about the process. In fact, i went Af100 just so client could monitor the footage on set and not have to deal with the extra rigging a 5dmk2 out. Just into my Kimini from SDI and out to monitor for the client. That was as far of a decision for VFX capture we went. I just had to avoid the Hdslr though, but could have done it, as it was requested by the end user.
I agree, shooting for VFX, it's nice to have better capture. Thats a given. But when SHOWTIME asks for 5dmk2 on green screen, it makes me think. Have you seen some of the Redtails Lucas compositions Philip shot on HDslr? Kinda makes you think, yeah?

 

[Rick Burnett]

Rick, look at my Avatar. What is it you see? A green screen, right? Look closer at who is the subject. That is Michael C. Hall, or more commonly known as Dexter. This was part of Sebree's Dexter season 6 promo. The client wanted some green screen motion and was strongly requesting it be shot on 5dmk2. Now we all know it can happen, right? Green screen on 5D. I asked Sebree that maybe we should rent the RED. We passed this by client and they said, "absolutely NOT"! I convinced them to shoot it on my Af100 then. They kept pushing 5dMk2, but I finally won with the Af100. Afterwards we contacted the guys that received the footage and they said "all is good, pulling nice keys". But I found out that they were the ones that asked for 5dMK2 and denied the RED rental capture. In the end, Sebree and I didn't care less about the process. In fact, i went Af100 just so client could monitor the footage on set and not have to deal with the extra rigging a 5dmk2 out. Just into my Kimini from SDI and out to monitor for the client. That was as far of a decision for VFX capture we went. I just had to avoid the Hdslr though, but could have done it, as it was requested by the end user.
I agree, shooting for VFX, it's nice to have better capture. Thats a given. But when SHOWTIME asks for 5dmk2 on green screen, it makes me think. Have you seen some of the Redtails Lucas compositions Philip shot on HDslr? Kinda makes you think, yeah?

Maybe if you hadn't used so shallow DoF on that shot of you I'd be able to tell who was in the background

Of course, it's not to say you can't do something with one camera, some cameras just require more work based on the IQ. Trying to key hair with 7D or 5D footage is a nightmare to me. It can be done, but the macro-blocking and color contamination of the sub-sampling makes it an absolute pain in the neck. Yet, when I had my AF100, it was a LOT easier. (And that's with the internal codec as well).

I mean, here's the thing, I own and still use a 7D from time to time. I have an FS100 which in my opinion blows the 7D out of the water on every front (since I can fix the highlights) except size and weight, and lens interface to my EOS lenses. Yet, I still use it KNOWING it's inferior picture OR the pain if I end up doing some VFX on the image. There are people here that would NEVER use a DSLR in their productions, EVER. I definitely don't let technology make every decision for me. I weight my purchases on A LOT of different scales. Most people do, as I am sure you do.

You know what was the first thing that made me "think" was seeing 35mm adapter footage out of the HV30 from Canon. So much so I built one just to play with.

I will say one thing, there is a LOT to think about these days in motion capture!

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

This seems to be a problem with a you know who... regarding the C300, the four teams that shot with it, didn't complain about anything. Nothing. Of course they might be biased since they were shooting for Canon, but still, LaForet blogs regularly and was extremely happy with how the camera performed and how easy it was to work with. There are also behind the scenes on every single film.

Same with the Alexa. Besides me, having shot with it a few times and never, ever had any issue whatsoever, no other DP I care to read about, has complained over anything.

Same story for the Sony F35.

So, the issues you are mentioning, reliability and honest technical information only belongs to this OTHER company. And this is no secret, its all very well documented, especially the overheating issues, reliability and the incorrect (or misleading) technical specs.

No need to all the sudden turn this around to the new kid on the block!

Where have you ever seen the other company have this sort of technical interviews to the public, or made available to everyone? Never. Every time they care to talk, its all about selling it, how great it is and how many Ks it shoots, and whatnot. Never in depth tech talk.

Nuno,

I've heard complaints about the Alexa and F35. The F35 ones are about resolution, sensitivity and DR (esp. when compared to more modern cameras). Not that the camera doesn't take lovely pictures, b/c it certainly does. With the Alexa, I'm sorry but I'm not a liberty to say as it was a private conversation that I had with a friend. But these complaints are image related and not insignificant under certain circumstances.

I also heard some hushed criticisms of the C300 image by a few folks while at the Paramount event, but when you're invited to a wedding, you generally say that the bride looks lovely.

 

[yoclay]

What a 'lame" way of jumping into a market. They did it "fast" to get something out? Wow, that is disappointing. Not trying to diss them too much but with all the other cameras out there and having success, they really could have come out with something stunning. If they spent the money and time to show us what they have, then, they really could have shown us something worth waiting for. In the meantime, F3's and FS-100's are selling quite nicely

They did it fast? It's been bloody 3 years and we can't even expect a 5DMIII until sometime late next year. What have they been doing? They said they started this project in 2009. What, they can only work on one project at a time? I smelled a purposefully overstretched roll-out from day one on this announcement, and I still feel that way. I wish I could find the statement I saw a while back where a Canon exec says point blank, "A 10, 12, or 14 bit version? Of course we have it. Why would bring that out now? We feel the client base wouldn't have the need to buy any more cameras after that." Swear to god, he says it directly.

 

[dustylense]

Maybe if you hadn't used so shallow DoF on that shot of you I'd be able to tell who was in the background

If you only understood just how hard that avatar image was to get! We all got busted for taking our Iphones out and taking pictures. My buddy snuck this one! Just to get a picture WITH Mr. Hall, we had to get me to stand in holding a pocket color chart in a stills set. I'm a huge Dexter fan. I got to exchange one sentence on a personnel level with him. The rest was business and his agents guarded him like Obama.

Pretty impresive composite to me. Wonder how the C300 would handle this shot.... Just sayin

 

[dustylense]

They did it fast? It's been bloody 3 years and we can't even expect a 5DMIII until sometime late next year. What have they been doing? They said they started this project in 2009. What, they can only work on one project at a time? I smelled a purposefully overstretched roll-out from day one on this announcement, and I still feel that way. I wish I could find the statement I saw a while back where a Canon exec says point blank, "A 10, 12, or 14 bit version? Of course we have it. Why would bring that out now? We feel the client base wouldn't have the need to buy any more cameras after that." Swear to god, he says it directly.

The 5dmk2 is still selling. Once Canon sees it's selling peak, they will release it's replacement. But first they are going to ride the 1Dx. And still, it's a STILLS CAMERA first.

 

[Bern Caughey]

If you only understood just how hard that avatar image was to get! We all got busted for taking our Iphones out and taking pictures.

Nothing personal, but anyone doing that on my set would likely get banned.

 

[dustylense]

Nothing personal, but anyone doing that on my set would likely get banned.

Well good for you. Mr. Hall was fine with it. It was the executives that weren't because it was a shoot for the Season Promos. Ya know, NDA's and such. My buddy snuck a quick point n shoot, then we put the camera away. No offense. Just which sets are you talking about?

 

[TimurCivan]

Make a Movie.