vincent thomas
Well-known member
Maybe it's my own crazy dream, but just wondering how difficult it would be to bring to efforts and developpemnt beem made on the 5d II and III to the C cannon camera and 1DC?
vince*
vince*
C100: Magic Lantern RAW CinemaDNG for C canon camera and 1DC?
- Thread starter vincent thomas
- Start date
vincent thomas
Well-known member
I really hate Canon today politic, it's indeed one of the most disapointing , they should be careful and give more respect to their customers
AndreeOnline
Veteran
By "treating with respect", do you mean dump the prices? Hand out cameras for free?
Canon have plenty of models that are very cheap if you want to make whimsical family movies. They have better cameras too, such as the mk3 that in no way limits you if you want to shoot artsy stuff.
Then they have professional tools, appropriately priced out of range of hobbyists. This is appropriate since I'm sure many pros invest in their own business and need some sort of separation from "everyone else". Pros don't care so much about price, since their clients pay for the equipment.
The good news is: you don't have to be a pro to buy pro stuff. Just save the money, buy it, and you can shoot flowers waving in the wind all day long.
Spartacus
Veteran
The threat alone shows that it can be done.
And although I have just bought a C100, I´ll probably ***** about it in a short while, because some of the shortcomings just aren't justified.
A 6000$ 1080p cam should have a high-res monitor/EVF. No matter how many "C" cameras may sit above it in the Canon line up.
And although I have just bought a C100, I´ll probably ***** about it in a short while, because some of the shortcomings just aren't justified.
A 6000$ 1080p cam should have a high-res monitor/EVF. No matter how many "C" cameras may sit above it in the Canon line up.
anatusa
Veteran
that stinks!
cowpunk52
Veteran
Please keep in mind that this supposed 'threat' comes from an anonymous source and is reported on EOSHD. This likely means the threat never happened, or came from someone not associated or affiliated with Canon in any way. EOSHD can be a fun blog to read, but it's rife with misinformation and speculation with ver little, if any, actual data to back up it's claims. Read everything on that site with a grain of salt.
that being said, I doubt you'll see any hacks for c series cameras - market penetration and demographic don't make it a priority. The cameras also perform exceptionally well without any sort of hack, so why risk damaging an expensive and set-proven tool?
that being said, I doubt you'll see any hacks for c series cameras - market penetration and demographic don't make it a priority. The cameras also perform exceptionally well without any sort of hack, so why risk damaging an expensive and set-proven tool?
vincent thomas
Well-known member
When you see how much the magic lantern transform the potential of the 5d II and III with additional features for the same price, it's still a little hard to have a total confidence in Canon it pack the $$ C camera with all the best options possibles. I especially have a problem with the tonal gradation , how much the 8b compression (really excellent by the way) could clip information in the highlights for example .. I guess im still too much attach of the creamy look of film
Well, that's just an opinion based on ignorance. Canon provides professional tools that work, not pie in the sky, "Will this feature make the camera unstable, will it require extremely high priced media that doesn't even exist yet" kind of stuff.
Canon did an awesome job in what they think customers truly need.
All we have to do is to think ourselves as those pros that Canon envisioned.
LOL
Again, I think Magic Lantern did a pretty job in opening up possibilities for those geeks, someone who pays more attention to the technical data of cameras rather than creativity.
and gives students/ recent graduates a chance to touch on pro tools, like 14 bit Raw.
All I see is only great things Magic lantern brought up, nothing really harms the market. Consider the Lights, sound, etc that you have to invest on for pro looking film, Raw seems to be a small part of it. Since you can make 8 bit 4:2:0 look good out of camera if you know how to light correctly.
Again, you can rent a RED for cheap amount of money, but you wont make the image look good unless you know how to use it.
with 14 bit RAW on 5D, I see a big leap in low/no budget films, real estate videos, local restaurant ads, cheap VFX, etc. But these arent the jobs that pros are biting on.
---
back to the topic, the concept behind C100 is on the exact opposite of RAW. even for C300, I think its more for broadcast (c300), run n gun, and long recordings (c100 on indian weddings, seminars, local fest). these are circumstances that FS700, RED, not fitting.
and c100 has already secured its place in these kind of market for at least 2 years from now, who knows what happens in 2015 ? maybe computer can color grade raw with a single click and no lag. at that time, 8 bit might going to be out of league. and people are saying C100 mark ii only offers "10 bit 4:2:2" not 14 bit uncompressed that FS700 mark ii offers
LOL
vincent thomas
Well-known member
Well isn'it that a non objective opinion?
You are not the only one here to be a professional. But i still have the right to have my opinion about how fair canon marketing polities is.
This is what it is about. After, i totally agree how how amateur it is to shot with a system unstable and with possible data lost.
You are not the only one here to be a professional. But i still have the right to have my opinion about how fair canon marketing polities is.
This is what it is about. After, i totally agree how how amateur it is to shot with a system unstable and with possible data lost.
If you want single click color grading, might I suggest a Magic Bullet Looks preset?
I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion, I simply stated that your opinion is ignorant.
I think it is a BS threat. ML should still go for it.
empty statement and name calling..man you are really one trick pony ...try not to sound like CANON spokesmen ...
Im not sure I understand why though. The 5DMKIII for example was never on my radar, but if they can get this working and stable I'll take a look at it (as another camera in the bag - not a primary unit). Theres just something about FF wides, and which camera shoots high res full frame video?
MattRobertson
Well-known member
I couldn't ever see a hack like this for a c series camera. For a few reasons.. That is simply not the market. People who are buying c100's are not the same people who want raw dng's for example. Just thinking of the hassle of using the 5d (which is already a frusturating camera to use for video work for MANY reasons) raw hack makes me cringe. I've had enough of my hack days when I had my gh2, and it was wildly unreliable even though I tried to justify it on pro shoots. It feels to great to use a proper camera that just WORKS. And oh yeah did I mention it looks amazing? haha
AndreeOnline
Veteran
I think the one obvious hack that Canon wants to avoid at all costs is 1Dx-->1Dc. Had ML given it a shot, I'm sure they could have made something work. Not sure it would be stable in all scenarios, but it could work. I think this is the reason that Canon makes 1Dc firmware upgrades a service option where you have to send your camera in. They won't release any 1Dc firmware files to the general public.
Canon has shown some goodwill towards 1Dc owners in asking what features we'd like to see. They might add additional features in the future. One thing sorely missing from all Canon cameras is a timelapse movie mode that lets you specify your frame rate, like 1 frame per second, in a tweaked Live View mode with the screen off so that you don't have to use up several thousand shutter actuations for a 1 minute TL.
On a 1Dc, a 4k mjpeg timelapse mode like this would be very attractive to me as the quality would be very good and the movie would be all packaged and done directly on the CF card.
Andrew is pretty productive and put out a lot of information. The problem is just like you say: the quality of the information is uneven at best.
Not everything is bad, but it's very opinionated. While 'opinionated' is fine, he tends to write in a matter of fact style that suggests he has researched a topic objetively, when in fact he was supporting a preconceived opinon all along. That is problematic.
He is operating cameras in the $700-3500 range and desperately want them to be as good as the REDs, Alexas or the Canon C-line. He does a lot of cherry picking when choosing his information to share and is quick to bash more expensive products (and their users, who are idiots). When the 4k MBPC was announced he didn't spare his words in describing what he felt about the 1Dc and its pricing. I tried to lend some perspective and called him on bad journalism (which it was). But all that got me was that he blocked me on Twitter =)
His most recent comparison between the 5Dmk3 and the 1Dc is pretty typical. He doesn't include any downscaled 1Dc 4k frames in the 1080p resolution charts and when he compares sharpess in actual footage he takes an untreated 1Dc Log frame and compares it to a "treated" (developed in Camera Raw with sharpness and noise reduction) 5Dmk3 frame. The 5D still loses of course...
He posts a dynamic range test between a graded 14bit 5Dmk3 raw and a 1Dc Canon Log frame. Obviously 14 bit raw is a much richer file, but when you look at the scene (which is OK) you see how little there is between them and how good the 1Dc is. His conclusion is predicatably: they didn't have time to do a proper DR test and the images (this time around) actually CAN'T speak for themselves. The actual difference between the cameras doesn't show up "the right way".
In his article, the 1Dc's 1.3x crop in 4k mode is now a problem against FF's no crop. When he was testing the BMCC against C300 I don't recall it was ever a problem: you just need different glass.
The list goes on... I own both the 5Dmk3 and the 1Dc so I know the cameras. I wonder what a casual reader of his blog comes away with? And that is my problem with him: not the misinformation or speculation, but rather the cherry picked information that paints the wrong picture.