C200: Thinking about buying one...

If you cut out the beginning, it may work:

downloads.canon.com/nw/camera/products/cinema-eos/c200/docs/canon-cinema-eos-comparison-chart.pdf

Or try copying and pasting.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
... 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.
Click to expand...

Just watched about 15 minutes of "Mr. Mercedes" and the slow motion and moving camera footage ratio was ~ 1 to 1 ... about five seconds each (of the ~ 15 minutes that I watched). There was a few pans and a lot of hand-held shots that were just wobbly enough to be nauseating. The look was intentionally claustrophobic.
 
DLD said:
Just watched about 15 minutes of "Mr. Mercedes" and the slow motion and moving camera footage ratio was ~ 1 to 1 ... about five seconds each (of the ~ 15 minutes that I watched). There was a few pans and a lot of hand-held shots that were just wobbly enough to be nauseating. The look was intentionally claustrophobic.
Click to expand...
Specific examples are kind of aside from the point I was making with my generalized example of how Hollywood makes movies. Not sure what your point is.
 
I remember the first time I noticed slow motion in movies while watching John Woo stuff. It had a style and I though it was interesting. The first time I noticed speed ramping was with "300". Again, I thought it was interesting and it highlighted the violence. Now, I see it creep into all kinds of TV and commercials and it just seems to slow down the storytelling rather than add to it. Last night I was watching "Inhumans" and they had a bunch of cheap, knockoff John Woo style slow motion bullet impacts and I just thought it slowed down an already incredibly boring action scene. Whatever happened to speeding up action scenes Jackie Chan style? I feel like an old crank with this opinion, but I just don't find slow motion interesting in general use. It's a problem because I don't know how to use it effectively when a client thinks they want it. On the other hand, I do think the use of HFR 48p opens up new possibilities so my opinions aren't mainstream.

All that is to say that I ended up going with a C300 MKII whether than buying into a C200 because I thought it fit my needs better.
 
Gary T said:
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
Click to expand...

I would love to see where Chivo was crediting Codex. He could only credit Steven J. Scott and his Technicolor gang:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85lVPc0eAM0

They can make any decently exposed footage shine, especially with hand animated mattes.

Oh, no, I forget, that's not true, how silly of me.
It was ALEXA's cinematic mojo in combination with mind-reading feature which puts the light where it should be.

PS. Hoping for at least 4 down-votes, any more would be a blessing from the sky.
 
laverdir said:
I would love to see where Chivo was crediting Codex. He could only credit Steven J. Scott and his Technicolor gang:
Click to expand...

This wasn't the article I was thinking of but he makes the point here too.

"What Marc and the team have done is to create a recording system that lets cinematographers take full advantage of modern cameras – such as the ARRIRAW image with the ALEXA and now the ALEXA 65. Without Codex we could not record this amount of information, with this sheer quality. They have unlocked very important creative possibilities for cinematographers and directors with their brilliant work. Hat’s off!"

https://codex.online/casestudies/light-fantastic-the-making-of-the-revenant
 
What's the point? What did they unlocked?

Re-lighting?

Those 'creative possibilities' existed long long before Codex Digital.
 
Arri Alexa captures uncompressed ArriRAW. How is a codex recorder recording also uncompressed ArriRAW any different?

I'm guessing the image quality is the same, but the workflow is improved, which would still fit with what Lubezki said.

I think it's accurate to say none of us posting here have shot with the 65, and few of us know the full details of various advantages codex offers for it. So to dismiss it without knowing what you're dismissing would be a bit ignorant. Perhaps someone can chime in on the benefits. I thought the Alexa 65 had a method to record internally, but I really haven't looked at it a lot and am feeling too lazy to look it up right now.

I think it's also safe to say that generally speaking Academy Award winning cinematographers are not idiots when it comes to choosing equipment for a job. I really doubt The Revenant would have looked as good as it did if it was shot on a Red or C200, even with a bajillion dollar budget for color grading and hand animated mattes.
 
Last edited:
I think recording the Alexa 65's 12 bit 6K uncompressed Open Gate RAW reliably to a single drive the way that Codex does is non-trivial. The data rate is over 700 MBs vs the 260 RED Maxes out at when recording Helium 8K RAW. The fact that they are able to record this to a single drive is stunning. We are all entitled to our opinions and in this world mine doesn't count very much. Fortunately for Codex the guy who won an unprecedented three Academy and ASC Awards in row also thinks their tech is pretty amazing and says, "they have unlocked very important creative possibilities for cinematographers and directors with their brilliant work. Hat’s off!"

I don't want to read too much into your response but it sounds like you might think he shouldn't have won. I was in the room after he won a couple of those awards and based on the comments I heard most of his peers seemed to have thought he deserved to win. If you're one of those people who thinks the award should primarily be about camera work, I vaguely remember some talk after Gravity won about splitting the Cinematography Award into two different prizes. I think the idea was to have one award that was for more technical effects driven films and another for traditional cinematography. I think it was some industry pundit talking about so I don't think it got any traction.

I am more of Convergent Devices and Atomos guy but if I could afford it I would be recording on a Codex with an Alexa 65. As the man said, "Hat's off!"
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Arri Alexa captures uncompressed ArriRAW. How is a codex recorder recording also uncompressed ArriRAW any different?

I'm guessing the image quality is the same, but the workflow is improved, which would still fit with what Lubezki said.

I think it's accurate to say none of us posting here have shot with the 65, and few of us know the full details of various advantages codex offers for it. So to dismiss it without knowing what you're dismissing would be a bit ignorant. Perhaps someone can chime in on the benefits. I thought the Alexa 65 had a method to record internally, but I really haven't looked at it a lot and am feeling too lazy to look it up right now.

I think it's also safe to say that generally speaking Academy Award winning cinematographers are not idiots when it comes to choosing equipment for a job. I really doubt The Revenant would have looked as good as it did if it was shot on a Red or C200, even with a bajillion dollar budget for color grading and hand animated mattes.
Click to expand...

I have never worked with an Alexa 65 but someone at Arri once told me all of the current generation of ALEXAs rely on Codex for their recording tech. Codex offers additional hardware that provides an integrated platform for that handles the entire pipeline including dailies. I think it's kind of plug and play which makes things nice for the studios that would be shooting on an Alexa 65. At the heart of it is a single drive can record 861GBs per second that allows them capture pristine 6K RAW video. That beautiful Codex captured uncompressed footage apparently makes it much easier to have a CGI bear realistically attack Leonardo DiCaprio.

https://codex.online/products/media
https://www.arrirental.de/camera/di...-wrangler-on-location-dailies/codex-vault-xl/
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Arri Alexa captures uncompressed ArriRAW. How is a codex recorder recording also uncompressed ArriRAW any different?

I'm guessing the image quality is the same, but the workflow is improved, which would still fit with what Lubezki said.

I think it's accurate to say none of us posting here have shot with the 65, and few of us know the full details of various advantages codex offers for it. So to dismiss it without knowing what you're dismissing would be a bit ignorant. Perhaps someone can chime in on the benefits. I thought the Alexa 65 had a method to record internally, but I really haven't looked at it a lot and am feeling too lazy to look it up right now.

I think it's also safe to say that generally speaking Academy Award winning cinematographers are not idiots when it comes to choosing equipment for a job. I really doubt The Revenant would have looked as good as it did if it was shot on a Red or C200, even with a bajillion dollar budget for color grading and hand animated mattes.
Click to expand...

Have you read what he said was the reason why he pick 65 for landscapes? Ah, I'm just too lazy to post a link.

RAW here had two important roles, first is to serve matte animating team and second is to compensate for natural lighting.

Chivo has desires and Steve fulfills them... in Birdman, Gravity, Revenant... Steve and DP Chivo collectively won the awards.

Anyway, if you are to lazy to watch the whole youtube link few posts up, start somewhere around 21' and you'll get the point.

Harris: "It feels more like a relighting then a color-grading?"
Scott: "It is in a way."
...
Scott: "He has a request. He doesn't know if it's impossible. He doesn't care. He just asks. And we figure out how the hell are we going to do that."

Canon and RED would indeed have problems, you can't break the laws of physics, just cheat a bit and that's not good enough.

Here are few before (Chivo) and after (Steve) frames:




 
Bob Loblaw said:
I know those responsible for this are infinitely more talented and more knowledgeable than I am, but that second image screams "post fix". It looks very unnatural to me.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't read to much into the appearances since apparently these are frame grabs from a Youtube video. The original footage looked good enough to win several Academy Awards including best cinematography.
 
Spartacus said:
I referred to Dan and you in a particular order, hoping it made clear Dan said "no WOW" and you "like all Cs".
Sure, a RAW(lite) recording with Log gamma will give you plenty of information to start with and push around.
Still there are certain cameras who can deliver a certain "look and feel" most like (like the Alexa or the F35)
while others don't create a huge following (like the F55).
Given no budget restraints I would always choose the Alexa Mini over any Canon (saying this as a C300/100/200 owner...).
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
If budget were no constraint...
In reality it is a huge constraint for virtually all of us. As far as budgets go, the Alexa EV with high speed license is an interesting budget solution:

Geoff Boyle did a fairly extensive camera test earlier this year. His conclusion: "My advice to anyone wanting to buy a camera is simple, if you have clients that are more interested in pictures than PR, If you have clients that are more interested in pictures than numbers then get an Alexa Classic. They're dropping in price quite quickly, partly because people want the mini or the SXT, without know why, partly because they want to get rid of them before the new 12K Alexa is launched at IBC. If you're shooting reality TV I would have said get a C300-2 but now I'd err towards the C200."

I know some who purchased Alexa EV outfits with EVF for under $9K. An interesting 1-2 year solution I think- Alexa EV high speed + Canon (sub $10K). I have the C300M2 for 4K... If starting from scratch I'd get the C200 over the c300M2- but everything changes every 6-12 months...
 
mcgeedigital said:
It certainly is.

Matt Gottshalk - Director/ Dp/ and Emmy Award Winning Editor
Producer, Digital Creative for the United States Postal Service
Click to expand...

Please, could you describe us how did you feel when the award for Emmy Award Winning Editor was handed to you? Did you make a speech?

That's some new category in Maryland / National Capitol/Chesapeake Bay Regional Emmy Award?

Wasn't that Emmy® Award for Public/Current/Community Affairs Program/Special for production of The American Veteran Center Honors awarded to producers Mark Maxey and Tim Holbert?

Page 25.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the right translation of decorating with someone else’s feathers in english: 'to adorn oneself with borrowed plumes'?

Camera marketing departments got the same virus lately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top