I don't think I've even had a conversation where HFR is concerned where it wasn't generally excepted that anything over 30p is HFR.
C200: Thinking about buying one...
- Thread starter macgregor
- Start date
I don't think I've even had a conversation where HFR is concerned where it wasn't generally excepted that anything over 30p is HFR.
The good news is that those who can afford the very best can pair their C700 with a Codex CDX‑36150. This combo will allow the C700 to record uncompressed 4K RAW up to 120p and 4.5K RAW up to 100p.
While he was obviously working with the ALEXA, I remember reading something about Emmanuel Lubezki crediting the Codex's ability to capture full quality uncompressed RAW as the one if the reasons he was able to get the results he did on "Gravity" and "The Revenant." The Codex ecosystem is obviously for people with deep pockets but apparently when quality is paramount the big boys want uncompressed RAW.
https://codex.online/camera-partners/canon
Last edited:
No, convos usually go like this:
-Hey have you heard about New Camera X?
-No, what are the specs? Does it record slo-mo (or overcrank or HFR depending on the person)?
-Yes, it does 60p.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
So what happens if you shoot sports in 60p for a network?
Does a person ask you, "Oh, so you shoot sports in slow-motion/HFR?"
You have a point about sports, but I was assuming we were talking about cinema applications considering the camera we're talking about and the site we're on.
In cinema, since most cameras jump from 30p to 60p (if they do above 30p at all), that's kinda the default beginning of slo mo being 40% speed on a 24p timeline.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only fairly recently (last 5 years?) that affordable cameras can do above 60p at all, with most doing either 720/60p or 1080/60i; and 4k HFR is still pretty rare to have at all, much less 4k RAW HFR. Look at the players:
-RED released the Scarlet X in 2012 and it only did higher than 60 while windowing to hell, and you had to buy a $30k flagship model (Epic or One) to get any higher. The One MX only did 60p at full res.
-Blackmagic only introduced 4k/80fps in the big URSA (and only 120-150 on the V2 sensor), and that was only 3 years ago; before that they were capped at 30p on all of their cameras.
-Sony could only do bursts of 120fps on the FS700 back in 2012 (and only in HD). Wasn't until the FS7 that they offered 4k/60p, and that camera only made it to stores about 2.5 years ago.
60p being standard on cameras is pretty new. I remember buying a GH3 to go along with my BMCC just for the occasional slo mo shot.
I think Canon offering 4k/60p in RAW at this price point is pretty cool...
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
It will be 3yrs in Oct. I got mine in Nov. Damn good investment and still going strong.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I think we both understand each other. We all just keep climbing up the ladder...
4K/60p is relatively new in consumer/prosumer cameras, but 1080/60p is old news. 3-4 years is a long time these days. (BM studios had 1080/60p but you needed an eternal recorder.)
And when I say HFR, I am definitely talking about HD. 4K/120p is pretty much non-existent or you need additional hardware with the camera.
I think the bottom line is that if you've been shooting 24p your entire life then you may consider any single frame over that desired base as HFR.
30p could be HFR for someone and the 80% slow-motion it offers.
But personally, I think there is a difference between true high framerate recording (120p) and using 60p in post-production to achieve slow-motion.
It's all good either way
4K/60p is relatively new in consumer/prosumer cameras, but 1080/60p is old news. 3-4 years is a long time these days. (BM studios had 1080/60p but you needed an eternal recorder.)
And when I say HFR, I am definitely talking about HD. 4K/120p is pretty much non-existent or you need additional hardware with the camera.
I think the bottom line is that if you've been shooting 24p your entire life then you may consider any single frame over that desired base as HFR.
30p could be HFR for someone and the 80% slow-motion it offers.
But personally, I think there is a difference between true high framerate recording (120p) and using 60p in post-production to achieve slow-motion.
It's all good either way
Agreed, I don't think many productions would find the improved quality of uncompressed RAW to be worth the increased cost. Codex appears to be reserved for the most rarified of customers who demand the very best. It's the only option with the ALEXA 65 which has no compressed codec. It seems like most productions are willing to take a slight hit in quality by going with ProRes 4444 XQ or a compressed RAW option like REDCODE RAW.
I don't think the C700/Codex combo has the issue the C500/Codex had with bulk and seems pretty compact to me. The CDX‑36150 seems to integrate into to camera nicely and looks like a natural extension of the camera.
NorBro
Major Contributor
The C700/Codex combo is much better...any of those configurations (Sony/Panasonic too) with the boxes being bolted to the back of the cameras with battery plates integrated into them is nice...the less stuff hanging off these rigs the better.
I can't stand big/bulky setups though (at least not anymore). Small and light, internal uncompressed 4K/240p to something like below would be ideal...ha, one day.
I can't stand big/bulky setups though (at least not anymore). Small and light, internal uncompressed 4K/240p to something like below would be ideal...ha, one day.
To a dufus novice like me, 60p is where the HFR starts out and something that is more or less acceptable for most narratives. As the technology advances, the resolution of that 60p advances as well. Canon got a deservedly poor reputation for feature skipping based on the lack of 4K 60p in C300 MKII. C200 having 60p in 10-bit Raw at $7,500 is a pretty big step forward.
But it ain't no Phantom Flex. Nor is it priced like one.
But it ain't no Phantom Flex. Nor is it priced like one.
Dufus's like Peter Jackson consider HFR 48fps.
Closest thing I could find to a definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_frame_rate
Except Jackson wasn't using it for slo-mo and neither was that the case with Ang Lee and "Long half-time walk". That Sriracha dude who got a job shilling for Panasonic filmed his GH5 "Ice" demo/promo in 4K60p and I thought that, for a doco, it looked just fine. But it had nothing to do with the "real" HFS of Phanton Flex. And it didn't look all that different from 30p anyway.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Most big budget movies, TV shows, and commercials are filmed 100% in 24p. I feel like Sony imagined this when they limited the Sony Venice to 60 fps (while an A7s, C200, etc., do 120 fps) and only 30 fps in full frame. High frame rates for slow motion is what people often use to try to make generic corporate videos seem more cool, hence why I feel the low end often thinks slow motion is more important than the high end. What could possibly be more interesting to watch than an unattractive businessman in a suit walking in slow motion?
Do you do standup on weekends?
cpreston
Veteran
I can tell you what is less interesting. A businessman walking in regular motion. Slow motion can be a useful tool, but right now it is being used as a crutch. I'm sure that soon there will be a backlash and slow motion will go back to being an artistic choice rather than the default for promo videos.
macgregor
Veteran
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I'd argue that more interesting still is trying to find things for the businessman to do on camera (often in regular motion) that relate to his job more than staged walking (or other slow motion activities) do. Not saying all walking shots are bad. I'm saying slow motion shots are often generic in what they're showing and are used as a lazy form of storytelling over finding things which relate more to a video's subject matter, and also that the gimmick (in this case) of slow motion can distract from the content of the video. I feel gimmicks such as slow motion, drone shots, time lapse, extra shallow depth of field, etc., often lead people to say and think, "Cool shot," instead of, "I related to the content." Again, not saying these tools aren't useful when used appropriately.
I often like to look at what Hollywood does as a guideline for how things should be. So, perhaps 5-10% of big budget movies have slow motion in them. Of that say 7.5%, perhaps only .5% of the shots in the movies that use slow motion, are in slow motion. So overall (if I did my math right), we're talking about an infinitesimal 0.0375% (1 in 2666) of shots in Hollywood movies are in slow motion. Compare that to today's corporate videos where perhaps one in five shots on average are in slow motion.
I do like moving shots, which some people call a gimmick, but I generally don't think they are. Again, looking at Hollywood movies, what percentage of shots are moving in some way (as in, not locked down on a static tripod)? I'd say around 90%, perhaps more. Tripod shots (with pans and tilts) perhaps are 20-30% of shots, so that still leaves a high 70-80% which are using more movement than just a pan or tilt.
Last edited:
AndreeOnline
Veteran
Sorry trying to load the comparison link but it wont work
Sorry about that. It does work for me now and I checked after having posted it too just in case.
The full link reads like this, if your browser somehow adds or removes something:
https://downloads.canon.com/nw/came...00/docs/canon-cinema-eos-comparison-chart.pdf
You might get lucky googling the last part: canon-cinema-eos-comparison-chart.pdf (but I haven't tried that).
EDIT: Hmmm... the full link gets truncated since it's recognised as a link. Oh, well.