C200: The new Canon C200 with 4K

[puredrifting]

Sorry folks. Have to disagree here.
the advantage of RAW is that it can go pretty much anywhere in a grade.
It is quite possible to take footage from this camera and make it look every bit as good as anything coming off the Alexa or RED.

The reality is that it has probably more to do with glass and production values at this point.
This is where the mount becomes an issue too.
I am quite sure if you put a Cooke prime on this camera at T2, people would not be responding "meh, looks like a Canon image".
Further, most of those images are shot with a lot of depth of field - not traditionally what we think of cinema images.
So guess what ? With the added depth of field and not very sophisticated lighting or production values, it looks like video !

The definition of what looks "cinematic" is evolving. While personally, I have a long history with film, owned and shot film cameras for quite a few years, this is probably why I gravitate to the Arri cameras so strongly, they really look like film. OTOH, I just wrote an article about Guardians of the Galaxy Vol II, which was shot on a pretty un-filmic looking RED Weapon VV. To me, RED cameras look great, but they generally have a more digital, cleaner, more sterile look to them unless they have been heavily post massaged with film grain and artifacts added. So is that look "cinematic"?

It will be interesting to see an accomplished DP get a hold of the C200 and put it through it's paces to see what it is really capable of. Not that the Cloakroom footage didn't look good, it did I thought. But it was small production with a small team and not a lot of time to really light things and to build in a lot of higher end production value.

 

[rob norton]

It will be interesting to see an accomplished DP get a hold of the C200 and put it through it's paces to see what it is really capable of. Not that the Cloakroom footage didn't look good, it did I thought. But it was small production with a small team and not a lot of time to really light things and to build in a lot of higher end production value.

They had time to light things, they just opted to use the movi pro 100% of the time. I know they're tests but the "nothing but gimbal" stuff gets old pretty fast. I think this style is also a commentary on current smaller production values - lighting is nowhere near as important as it once was - bring the toys, don't shoot at 12pm, add the movement and you're done.

Also, when speaking directly with a client not used to the video production world, it's much easier for them to wrap their heads around gimbals and drones adding production value vs. lighting. They instantly see camera movement during playback but struggle to comprehend what a bounce board/negative fill achieves. This is nothing against Cloakroom Media. They seem like great guys and definitely know what they're doing. As far as business goes, they've found a successful model and I'm honestly happy for them. Dock to Dish follows this model too - natural light, gimbal where possible, small amount of lighting.

I was most impressed by the lowlight and AF. Seeing what was possible after NR looked perfectly acceptable to me. I haven't used NR in a while, I wonder how post-intensive it is? Those AF examples were pretty solid.

7 minutes with a drone is ridiculous. Other than a very small shot here or there, I'd say the only reason to go to the trouble of using such a large drone/c200 combo would be long mp4 record times, longer lens possibilties, and AF. I was recently on a DJI p4 shoot on the water for hours. The drone only returned because of batteries (we went through 6). Record times cannot be the bottleneck - you need to free your tools not hold them back!

I'd like to see more really polished mp4 samples.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

That is one way or looking at it. The other is to say, "In 2018, every pro camera is a Raw enabled camera, so I might as well figure out how to grade to the look or find the LUT's that can match ARRI's".

I've never seen a Canon look every bit as good as an ARRI or RED with a similar feel/look, but I would like to. There are some C200 RAW files available for download. If you have the time and/or interest, would you like to take a shot and show us? (Seriously asking.)

I agree that production values are a big part of the overall process, but if it was that easy to make these middle-end cameras look like the higher-end cameras, you'd see more productions doing it.

At the end of the day, IMO, it's about the sensor and the image the camera provides. You can't grade a sensor (and all of the magical processing and what not).

I'm with NorBro here. The C700's The Calling I assume had a professional colorist, but why doesn't it look as good as Arri footage? If it's so easy to simply apply a LUT to match Arri, then why does practically no Canon footage online look as good as Arri? Probably because it's not that easy for even a pro to match them. Sure, you'll see a comparison video of say an interview setup with a color chart, controlled dynamic range, controlled lighting, etc., and the shots between different camera models will look quite similar, perhaps indistinguishable, leaving people yelling, "It's all in the color grade," but as soon as you shoot a wide variety of shots in a real world environment for a real shoot, suddenly simply grading a mid ranged camera to match the quality of a high end camera either becomes time consuming, requiring a lot of professional coloring skill, and perhaps is actually impossible.

And if high end color grading was so easy that you "might as well figure out how to grade" then there wouldn't be professional colorists who spend a lifetime honing their skill. Most people who buy the C200 are not pro colorists; they are camera guys who do a little color grading on the side, and also don't have the budget to hire a pro colorist. And then again as I said, even the pros can't seem to get it to look like Arri when grading a full shoot.

Here's my analogy. Why date a naturally gorgeous woman named Alexa when you can date a moderately attractive woman, who with plastic surgery, implants, makeup, etc. could (but probably won't, cause most won't get plastic surgery, etc.) be made to look almost as good as the naturally gorgeous woman? Or to quote a quote I found on Facebook, "Arri is sexy, Red is that chick you thought looked good when you had beer goggles."

 

[Run&Gun]

Eric, I am going to have to agree with you on the C700. It's been shipping half a year and it seems to be gaining zero traction in features or episodic. I keep picking up my Ameican Cinematographer magazine or my Local 600 magazine and expecting to see something at least medium profile shooting with it but so far, nobody seems to be.

I said it when it came out. Canon was TOO LATE with the 700. IF they had immediately followed up with the original 300 with it, maybe...

 

[Run&Gun]

Good observation DLD. I personally think that Canon has totally surprised everyone (other than BMD) by introducing RAW internal at this price point. It makes Sony making you buy an expensive, large and clunky RAW adapter and recorder for thousands of dollars laughable. As much as I am looking forward to the EVA 1, I am sure that Mitch might have uttered a few choice epithets when he first saw the C200 specs with the words "internal RAW" ;-) It's not that everyone needs to be shooting RAW on the lower to medium end of the market, it's that Canon has now made that an opption at least, even if you buy a C200 and never shoot anything but .MP4s you could shoot RAW by simply purchasing a CFast card.

I just wrote an article exactly about this, how the reason many in our industry are clueless about budgeting for their gear is because people rarely buy cameras for features they truly need, they buy cameras because of an emotional fantasy about what they dream themselves shooting. These emotions get in the way of making sound, rational financial decisions about cameras. This is why we see people buying cameras they can barely afford, then skimping on most or all of the support to make that camera function in a professional enivironment. This is why we occasionally see RED Weapons sitting atop Manfrotto $500.00 tripods. At least at $7,500.00, the C200 is a fiscally obtainable dream for most pros, even if they end up only shooting .MP4s or Prores on an external recorder instead of Cinema RAW Light.

The R5/R7 RAW recorders may be pricey, but I wouldn't call them large or clunky. I've used both on my F55 and they basically become an integral part of the camera. Better than anything 'non-internal' out there, with the possible exception of a CODEX. I'd rather have an R5/7 on my F55 than an Odyssey or Atomos or whatever.

And you know that we're in agreement on your second paragraph about people blowing their wad on "sexy cameras" and not buying proper support gear.

 

[cpreston]

My pet theory about this cinematic look people can't quite mimic is that a lot of productions are still using filtration of some sort. I see it all over TV and movies. Some of it might be a post grade adding halation and diffusion, but some of it obviously isn't based on the telltale reflections and blooming. Even when you don't notice the filter it can still have a pretty big effect on the image, but you rarely see a filter in a camera test.

 

[puredrifting]

...Here's my analogy. Why date a naturally gorgeous woman named Alexa when you can date a moderately attractive woman, who with plastic surgery, implants, makeup, etc. could (but probably won't, cause most won't get plastic surgery, etc.) be made to look almost as good as the naturally gorgeous woman? Or to quote a quote I found on Facebook, "Arri is sexy, Red is that chick you thought looked good when you had beer goggles."

And we wonder why DVXUser is a 99.8% Sausagefest... Too bad we rarely see women DPs here.

 

[Run&Gun]

I've never seen a Canon look every bit as good as an ARRI or RED with a similar feel/look, but I would like to. There are some C200 RAW files available for download. If you have the time and/or interest, would you like to take a shot and show us? (Seriously asking.)

I agree that production values are a big part of the overall process, but if it was that easy to make these middle-end cameras look like the higher-end cameras, you'd see more productions doing it.

At the end of the day, IMO, it's about the sensor and the image the camera provides. You can't grade a sensor (and all of the magical processing and what not).

P.S. You can't use the CFast/SSD adapter that the BM cameras use because the door needs to be closed to record.

I was on a rather large shoot recently. Two Alexas in one "room"(large, multiple set-up set), two C300's in another room. All set-ups had the same art department setting them up and decorating them, same for lighting. All cameras going to video village. ANYONE that looked at the monitors could see a difference in the cameras. Even with what I presume was just a monitoring LUT for the Alexas, they were in a different league than the Canon's. For lack of a better word, the Alexa images just seem to have a "heft" to them and the Canon images, "flatter" and "thinner". The lighting wasn't flat, the images just didn't seem as "3d", if that makes since.

 

[puredrifting]

The R5/R7 RAW recorders may be pricey, but I wouldn't call them large or clunky. I've used both on my F55 and they basically become an integral part of the camera. Better than anything 'non-internal' out there, with the possible exception of a CODEX. I'd rather have an R5/7 on my F55 than an Odyssey or Atomos or whatever.

And you know that we're in agreement on your second paragraph about people blowing their wad on "sexy cameras" and not buying proper support gear.

Agreed, they are fine for what they are. I have shot with the Varicam 35 and Codex and had the C700 with the Codex back on my shoulder, it's a beast. My point was that Canon just re-wrote the rules. Remember back in the day, when we only had camera heads with dockable BVV5s on the back, then the BVW-400 came out, then the BVWD-600? That's where we're at here, Canon just negated the way everyone else does RAW. For that, they should be commended. This means Sony can no longer introduce sub-$10k cameras that require thousands of dollars more toys just to shoot RAW. Same with Panasonic, the Varicam LT and EVA 1 will require a Odyssey or Shogun Inferno to record RAW. I would rather just slip a card into a slot any day. The only advantage to the external way of doing it will be cheap SSDs, but I think CFast cards will come down quite a bit in price soon.

 

[Run&Gun]

Agreed, they are fine for what they are. I have shot with the Varicam 35 and Codex and had the C700 with the Codex back on my shoulder, it's a beast. My point was that Canon just re-wrote the rules. Remember back in the day, when we only had camera heads with dockable BVV5s on the back, then the BVW-400 came out, then the BVWD-600? That's where we're at here, Canon just negated the way everyone else does RAW. For that, they should be commended. This means Sony can no longer introduce sub-$10k cameras that require thousands of dollars more toys just to shoot RAW. Same with Panasonic, the Varicam LT and EVA 1 will require a Odyssey or Shogun Inferno to record RAW. I would rather just slip a card into a slot any day. The only advantage to the external way of doing it will be cheap SSDs, but I think CFast cards will come down quite a bit in price soon.

I agree, I'd much rather have internal recording and soon enough, it should be trivial for any manufacturer to be able to do it.

 

[DLD]

... And if high end color grading was so easy that you "might as well figure out how to grade" then there wouldn't be professional colorists who spend a lifetime honing their skill. Most people who buy the C200 are not pro colorists; they are camera guys who do a little color grading on the side, and also don't have the budget to hire a pro colorist. And then again as I said, even the pros can't seem to get it to look like Arri when grading a full shoot. ...

The thing is (and Norbert, you can quote me on this ... again), the next year is likely to become THE year when even the low level professional image acquisition is going to be in some form of Raw, whether ARRI, Canon, Canon Light, X-OCN, et cetera., so an independent shooter either is going to have to become, at worst, proficient at it or partner up with someone who is. Much like 1080p morphed into 4K, XAVC, MP4, H.264 are going to morph into Raw. Some "grading" is going to be mostly adding a LUT of choice; at other times, the process will be more deliberate.

PS. Me being at least a couple of decades older than you probably means that I don't have to apologize for liking older women, including those who have had a few touch-ups.

I was on a rather large shoot recently. Two Alexas in one "room"(large, multiple set-up set), two C300's in another room. All set-ups had the same art department setting them up and decorating them, same for lighting. All cameras going to video village. ANYONE that looked at the monitors could see a difference in the cameras. Even with what I presume was just a monitoring LUT for the Alexas, they were in a different league than the Canon's. For lack of a better word, the Alexa images just seem to have a "heft" to them and the Canon images, "flatter" and "thinner". The lighting wasn't flat, the images just didn't seem as "3d", if that makes since.

C300 MKII internal doesn't have the same specs as Alexa, especially of the latter iterations. C200 Raw should.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

The thing is (and Norbert, you can quote me on this ... again), the next year is likely to become THE year when even the low level professional image acquisition is going to be in some form of Raw, whether ARRI, Canon, Canon Light, X-OCN, et cetera., so an independent shooter either is going to have to become, at worst, proficient at it or partner up with someone who is. Much like 1080p morphed into 4K, XAVC, MP4, H.264 are going to morph into Raw. Some "grading" is going to be mostly adding a LUT of choice; at other times, the process will be more deliberate.

PS. Me being at least a couple of decades older than you probably means that I don't have to apologize for liking older women, including those who have had a few touch-ups.

C300 MKII internal doesn't have the same specs as Alexa, especially of the latter iterations. C200 Raw should.

The thing is (and Norbert, you can quote me on this ... again), the next year is likely to become THE year when even the low level professional image acquisition is going to be in some form of Raw, whether ARRI, Canon, Canon Light, X-OCN, et cetera., so an independent shooter either is going to have to become, at worst, proficient at it or partner up with someone who is. Much like 1080p morphed into 4K, XAVC, MP4, H.264 are going to morph into Raw. Some "grading" is going to be mostly adding a LUT of choice; at other times, the process will be more deliberate.

Many clients don't grade footage at all. They want a baked in look. Next year will be no different in that regard. You can complain all you want about how footage needs to be graded, but it won't change that many clients don't grade footage at all. Until RAW has what the Amira does with ProRes, which is automatically applying a LUT in the editing program, such that NO post color work is needed, then RAW will not become mainstream for shoots that will not be graded at all. I don't believe the C200 has this feature; I do believe it is a metadata thing, so perhaps a firmware update could fix this, or Premiere, etc., could recognize C200 RAW and automatically apply the LUT. So, I suppose it's all possible.

I still don't believe next year is the year RAW will become a mainstream workflow. Hard drive space hasn't dropped significantly enough in price yet, hasn't been dropping enough in recent years, memory cards are still expensive, post workflow is not streamlined, copying 1 TB of footage on set still takes a long time (compared to copying 50 GBs), etc. Until all of these issues are alleviated, RAW won't be mainstream on lower end quick turn around shoots.

I don't think C200 RAW is likely to be a big step above C300 Mark II 10 bit 4:2:2. Technically with the C300 Mark II you can output 4K RAW to a monitor (Run&Gun was talking about monitors), which you can't do with the C200, so I suppose you could argue that the C300 Mark II has a better quality output for monitoring (not sure if viewing RAW on a monitor makes much difference or if it actually displays the RAW or is just capable of recording it). At the end of the day you're still stuck with a Canon image, RAW or not, and it's not the same as Alexa. As I said before, lots of people seem to make the mistake of thinking that all RAW is equal, when it isn't. Easier to grade, sure. Easy to make equal to higher end cameras, no.

Let me ask you this. If the Canon image is supposedly just as good as Arri (or can so easily be made to look the same in post), and say you were given the choice between two cameras, the C200 with an Arri sensor, but Canon's low light, etc., or a C200 with the Canon sensor, all for the same price, which would you choose?

I'd personally love a C200 body with an Arri sensor. I wish Arri would make smaller cameras. The Alexa Mini is far from the ergonomics and built-in feature set (XLRs, small batteries, etc.) of the C200.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

And you know that we're in agreement on your second paragraph about people blowing their wad on "sexy cameras" and not buying proper support gear.

I DPed a short film recently where the AC guy brought his Red Epic-W Helium which the producer rented. Said he got it on discount for around $20k, it sells for $30k now. Got it I believe a few months ago. But, he didn't own any memory cards for it. Not one. Our producer had to rent a memory card for the shoot from LensRentals. Owner said he'd spent too much money on the camera to be able to afford media for it, so he was renting media whenever he had a shoot.

 

[NorBro]

It is a strange time. I agree and believe RAW is the future, and that we will see most cameras offering it internally and/or externally moving forward, but whether MORE people will be using it and/or are ready to accept it into their life and job/workflow is another question.

I chose the wrong career, man. ha.

Anyone here preorder the Lytro? :2vrolijk_08:

 

[puredrifting]

I DPed a short film recently where the AC guy brought his Red Epic-W Helium which the producer rented. Said he got it on discount for around $20k, it sells for $30k now. Got it I believe a few months ago. But, he didn't own any memory cards for it. Not one. Our producer had to rent a memory card for the shoot from LensRentals. Owner said he'd spent too much money on the camera to be able to afford media for it, so he was renting media whenever he had a shoot.

Stuff like this is so ridiculous but I too see it happen almost daily here and this is just one dicussion forum. It's amazing to me that people are often purchasing the most expensive item besides a car or house they will ever buy and yet so many people are freaking clueless about how to do it properly. When I was a kid, I worked in the restuarant industry and it's true that many people put more thought into buying a plate of French Fries than they put into buying a car. I guess this is just an extension of that.

 

[mproust14]

What is that intangible "heft" that people are referencing, and where does it derive from? I see it in the Arri cameras and the Varicam series (not the Reds), but like most on here I felt the c200 footage was a bit thin and videoy - now whether colour grading the footage will change this (even with the added headroom of raw) is a question yet to be answered. But I'd be surprised if it were in the affirmative as that is the history of the C line. So I am left wondering which camera I would want more: an EVA1 which may shoot images like that of the Varicam LT in 10bit; or a c200 which has raw but which lacks the "heft" of an LT and possibly an EVA1. So far canon has been the best of the bunch in this price category but that may well change. I just feel like a lot of the shots were an improvement on my c100 but in a different way than I would want it.

 

[rob norton]

Thanks for this link. Without a doubt the best C200 footage and review yet, this is so much better than From Dock to Dish. Cloakroom really know what they are doing, I would hire these guys in a heartbeat if I do a shoot in Australia. The C200 is really impressive here.

Come on puredrifting, hire me if you do a shoot in Australia! I'll buy a c200 just for the shoot rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[DLD]

... Let me ask you this. If the Canon image is supposedly just as good as Arri (or can so easily be made to look the same in post), and say you were given the choice between two cameras, the C200 with an Arri sensor, but Canon's low light, etc., or a C200 with the Canon sensor, all for the same price, which would you choose?

I'd personally love a C200 body with an Arri sensor. I wish Arri would make smaller cameras. The Alexa Mini is far from the ergonomics and built-in feature set (XLRs, small batteries, etc.) of the C200.

Well, it's one of those "what ifs" that will not happen in the current generation of cameras. Obviously, the low light performance is a big advantage for C200. I've read enough posts on these boards about Varicam LT and how being able to shoot at 3200 can save a day (and the night). C200 looks capable of producing a decent image at 12,800 with NR in post.

As to color matching to Alexa -

https://www.provideocoalition.com/color-matching-a-canon-c300-to-an-arri-alexa/

And more -

http://nofilmschool.com/2017/04/never-color-match-again-filmconverts-cinematch

And a 3-year old post.

Baselight has actually taken the ARRI photometric transform and allowed their application onto almost any footage through the use of their generalized color space.

All that is to say, what I tell DPs and producers when they ask, if you're shooting RAW with any of the big modern cameras (F55/65, Alexa, Dragon) they all produce very effective and easily matched results. Many DPs think of the camera choice as a form of picking stocks, when in fact, today you can basically pick your "stock" in post. Pick your camera based on cost/workflow/ergonomics not look.

Juan

http://www.liftgammagain.com/forum/index.php?threads/sony-f55-vs-alexa-color.2996/

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Well, it's one of those "what ifs" that will not happen in the current generation of cameras. Obviously, the low light performance is a big advantage for C200. I've read enough posts on these boards about Varicam LT and how being able to shoot at 3200 can save a day (and the night). C200 looks capable of producing a decent image at 12,800 with NR in post.

As to color matching to Alexa -

https://www.provideocoalition.com/color-matching-a-canon-c300-to-an-arri-alexa/

Art Adam's article basically backs up what I'm saying. To quote from the article...

THESE SETTINGS WILL NOT TURN YOUR CANON C300 INTO AN ARRI ALEXA REPLACEMENT. I’ve attempted to replicate aspects of the Alexa’s colorimetry in a camera whose design and color science are completely different in every way, using very coarse tools whose settings sit on top of Canon’s proprietary color science. The C300 doesn’t have the subtlety of color that Alexa offers, nor can it match Alexa’s dynamic range, and it doesn’t duplicate that delicate Alexa softness that makes everyone and everything look great. On the other hand, the C300 is less expensive and much smaller and lighter, and is the perfect tool for certain projects.

Who is Juan Salvo and what has he done? A random poster on a forum or should I know his name? I disagree with his assessment. I can quote forum posters too. Check this quote out from Dan (puredrifting), a DP from L.A., and also a forum poster.

It's pretty much all about Arri and RED at the high ends of production. I don't even think the Varicam has made serious inroads into high end production as a whole, although there has been some beautiful, high profile work shot with it. But as you go down the production listings in the Local 600 magazine, it's seems to be 70% Arri, 20% RED and the rest are a few mavericks shooting film, Varicam, C300 MKII, Sony F55 and F65, etc. I think the Varicam looks beautiful but today, if I was DPing an episodic or a ten million dollar feature, I am not sure if I would choose the C700 or even a Varicam, simply because I like what Arri gives me so much. Like you, I see the magic to the image that the others seem to just lack.

Of course, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it is simple to perfectly replicate an Arri with another camera that shoots RAW. The main reason I don't think that's the case is because even on Hollywood movies with million dollar budgets, often Alexa looks better than other cameras. If they had 10 million dollars devoted to post (not including VFX), you'd think if it were so easy that us mere mortal can match the cameras, that they could do it with their huge budget, but they often fail at it.

As I said before, The Calling looked like typical Canon footage, yet had a good budget and I assume a pro colorist. So what went wrong? I think it was the camera that went wrong. Same with Philip Bloom's demo, and Cloakroom Media's demo; looked like Canon footage, was graded by at least somewhat competent colorists (even if color grading isn't their career), but it still looks like Canon footage. I'd imagine all three of those shoots were graded by people with more skill and experience with color grading than the average person who will end up buying a C200, so if they couldn't get it right, why would we be able to?

I think it's a bit egotistical to assume one's self is such a talented DP and colorist that they can make a C200 look like an Arri, even though other high end professionals cannot (e.g., the DP of Titanic), such that they then have no reason to spend more money on an Arri, but if that's the case, then all the power to those of that skillset. I'm not that skilled.


I feel like a lot of people are talking like the C200 is the first lower priced RAW camera that's come out. We've already had many cameras in the C200 price range with RAW, such as the C500, C300 Mark II, FS700, every Blackmagic camera, AJA Cion, FS5, FS7, various older Red cameras that are cheaper than a C200 now. None of those camera have an image as good as Arri, nor have high end productions switched to using those cameras thinking, "With a basic tweak in post this RAW from any of these cameras can be made to look just like Arri." It can't and it hasn't, so the high end continues to use high end cameras.

 

[yoclay]

Art Adam's article basically backs up what I'm saying. To quote from the article...





Who is Juan Salvo and what has he done? A random poster on a forum or should I know his name? I disagree with his assessment. I can quote forum posters too. Check this quote out from Dan (puredrifting), a DP from L.A., and also a forum poster.



Of course, maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it is simple to perfectly replicate an Arri with another camera that shoots RAW. The main reason I don't think that's the case is because even on Hollywood movies with million dollar budgets, often Alexa looks better than other cameras. If they had 10 million dollars devoted to post (not including VFX), you'd think if it were so easy that us mere mortal can match the cameras, that they could do it with their huge budget, but they often fail at it.

As I said before, The Calling looked like typical Canon footage, yet had a good budget and I assume a pro colorist. So what went wrong? I think it was the camera that went wrong. Same with Philip Bloom's demo, and Cloakroom Media's demo; looked like Canon footage, was graded by at least somewhat competent colorists (even if color grading isn't their career), but it still looks like Canon footage. I'd imagine all three of those shoots were graded by people with more skill and experience with color grading than the average person who will end up buying a C200, so if they couldn't get it right, why would we be able to?

I think it's a bit egotistical to assume one's self is such a talented DP and colorist that they can make a C200 look like an Arri, even though other high end professionals cannot (e.g., the DP of Titanic), such that they then have no reason to spend more money on an Arri, but if that's the case, then all the power to those of that skillset. I'm not that skilled.


I feel like a lot of people are talking like the C200 is the first lower priced RAW camera that's come out. We've already had many cameras in the C200 price range with RAW, such as the C500, C300 Mark II, FS700, every Blackmagic camera, AJA Cion, FS5, FS7, various older Red cameras that are cheaper than a C200 now. None of those camera have an image as good as Arri, nor have high end productions switched to using those cameras thinking, "With a basic tweak in post this RAW from any of these cameras can be made to look just like Arri." It can't and it hasn't, so the high end continues to use high end cameras.

I do a lot of color grading for a living. I have seen almost every kind of footage come in and I can tell you that most of what people are seeing from an Alexa has more to do with higher production values than the camera sensor. Where the sensor has something different is that essentially it has a baked in HDR. The highlight rolloff appears better because it is approximately 1.5-2 stops of subtle HDR/2nd exposure. Not enough to look fake and HDR, but enough to give a sense of a soft shoulder towards the highlights. But if one thing the Zacuto shoot revealed, it is that when you know the limits of your camera and light towards it, the results are convincing enough that even Francis Ford Coppola may prefer it.

After that, the real reason why higher end productions use ARRI is because they are generally simple and more reliable. The quickest way to a satisfying look. That's it. Not because they are magic in a box or because the image is that much better than anyone else's. A lot of people weave a kind of mystical brew around the Alexa. End of the day, it's just a camera and the operator makes a HUGE difference.

One thing is for sure. If anyone here believes that owning an Alexa (or any other camera) is going to make their career take a large step forward, they are sadly mistaken.