+1. Bring two trash bags
I laugh when people claim a camera is filmic. What makes a film look like a film is more about aesthetics than technology most of the time. Not that there isn't some technically inferior products that just can't perform at all (Fisher Price PXL-2000 video camera). You want a reality check, read what normal non-cinematographer, or color-correcting, or editing people say about a movie. I can tell you with the million+ views of our mini-series on YouTube (Modern War Gear Solid) that NO ONE has ever said to us "Wow, that looks like video" Ever. In fact, if people say anything, it's "Wow, this looks like a hollywood production, how did you guys afford to do this? It looks like a movie" and on and on. And what was that shot on? Entirely with the Canon 7D (two of them actually). Sure, I feel confident that there are many people here that would go look at it and pick it apart to death "That highlight on that window, it's so like video" but really, what matters to me is those millions of viewers on our channel, not a few pixel peepers on a forum. That's my reality check.
I've looked at the Tattoo video from Red and I love what the Epic delivers. I had to laugh as I was watching it because I got sucked into the story and forgot to be looking at the IQ of what was going on. As I mentioned earlier, the footage from the Alexa in Game of Thrones was awesome to me. But, how could I EVER really compare both cameras when I've seen so little from both in terms of actual productions? There are so many variables involved between the sensor and the video I watched, it's not even funny. Clearly there are some HUGE projects going on using the Epic. I have a lot of respect for Peter Jackson and I think his films look about as *filmic* as it gets, and he is using Epic on The Hobbit. I think that speaks for itself. I put the Alexa and Epic in the same class. As with the AF100/FS100 they both have strengths and weaknesses.
But even beyond that, how many times have you read countless reviews, watched in depth videos, downloaded footage, thinking you found the perfect camera only to be disappointed by some aspect of that camera, or the quality of the video? The only way I can really judge a camera is by using it, getting the footage out of it, and testing that footage. *I* need to see what the camera was shooting at. *I* need to evaluate where the camera works well, where it doesn't. NO test has ever come to the same conclusions I have and that's why I take people claiming some camera is the *winner* with a grain of salt. It might win for you, and that's a fair statement, but there are so many different characteristics and features of a camera that is important for some people. Had the AF100 been smaller than the FS100 for me, I'd probably have kept the AF100 instead. Size matters
No matter what Canon releases, this thread will delve into what everyone hates about whatever they release. They can't possibly win. If it's a small modular body, people will complain that it's too small, if it's a big body, just the opposite. If it's S35 the 5D people are going to complain it's not full frame. If it's not 4K people are gonna complain it cannot compete. If it is 4K people will complain about ingesting the footage, or having to covert it to something else. This list could go on and on and on. No camera is perfect for everyone, that is an impossible task because we all have opposing desires with certain features that are important to us.
Agreed. But would Scorcese show up for a $5,000 AF100/FS100 competitor or a 5D Mark III? Not bloody likely either. Which is why I say that this announcement will be about a whole lot more than a product introduction, if there even is a product introduction at all. :thumbsup:Big guns are coming out...Scorsese will appear at the Canon event. So will all this hoopla be just for a printer (or a hairdryer)? Not bloody likely!