af for super shallow dof hmm yeah never really thought about that ^^ for me it was always: "Af. . . ? On a CINE cam? . . . omg! no f***in way. Like rackfocusing using af? That looks like sh** no matter how good the af is!" but with dof on f1.4 this might be interesting, might need to try this out (though would need a cam AND the lens for that. . . lol)
Which announcement were you more satisfied with?
- Thread starter Hutchman
- Start date
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
A few years ago... our gaffer got upset because we where going to shoot Fuji... I didn't even think about it... we shot in Rochester, NY... ended up the gaffer on the shoot told me at the rap party.. he was going to work for Kodak as a DP on Monday... we ended up shooting Kodak anyway... because the person made a mistake who we were getting our film from... he didn't have 100,000 feet of 1,000 foot re-can loads in Fuji for the same price as Kodak long ends... he only had 10,000 feet...
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
$20,000 - 100,000 ft x .20 a foot = its been a while... haven't shot film in three features... this is shooting ends... new stock is probably .50 or more a foot now... probably paid closer to .25 a foot...
$12,000 - 100,000 ft x. 12 develop & prep for ... video transfer
$15,000 - 100 hours x $150 an hour to transfer to video... one light...
$47,000 give or a take a few dollars...
On average I'd say to shoot 35mm its at least a 100k total on a small feature... shooting, lab and doing a film print... since HD has come out... been putting those savings into actors, etc...
I could get beat up here... but thinking about it... did Canon miss the mark... 1080 is still what TV is... pretty much these are things I've kinda read through things... good image in camera... saving time and money in post... so is the C300 really for cinema or more for 1 hour shows... some like the run and gun look of the 5D... but the new camera is in a camera closer to what they want in terms of ease of use... when you only have a week to finish a what 44 minute show... just my .02 opinion...
I was hoping for at least an F3 with 1 to 120fps and Slog for about the price of an F3... 4k would have been nice... but I'd been happy with 1080...
I said the last 3 films on HD...
1. CineAlta 900... the JVC (can't think of the model name) and some Cancun footage shot on my DVX...
2. Almost everything under the sun... and even some 35mm & Super 16...
3. Still in post was shot on a Red 1 rental from Panavision...
$12,000 - 100,000 ft x. 12 develop & prep for ... video transfer
$15,000 - 100 hours x $150 an hour to transfer to video... one light...
$47,000 give or a take a few dollars...
On average I'd say to shoot 35mm its at least a 100k total on a small feature... shooting, lab and doing a film print... since HD has come out... been putting those savings into actors, etc...
I could get beat up here... but thinking about it... did Canon miss the mark... 1080 is still what TV is... pretty much these are things I've kinda read through things... good image in camera... saving time and money in post... so is the C300 really for cinema or more for 1 hour shows... some like the run and gun look of the 5D... but the new camera is in a camera closer to what they want in terms of ease of use... when you only have a week to finish a what 44 minute show... just my .02 opinion...
I was hoping for at least an F3 with 1 to 120fps and Slog for about the price of an F3... 4k would have been nice... but I'd been happy with 1080...
I said the last 3 films on HD...
1. CineAlta 900... the JVC (can't think of the model name) and some Cancun footage shot on my DVX...
2. Almost everything under the sun... and even some 35mm & Super 16...
3. Still in post was shot on a Red 1 rental from Panavision...
Last edited:
This is a fascinating thread and I agree with over 80% of expressed sentiments, but I think people are entirely fixated on the C300 as opposed to the formation of the new division at Canon with a new mission of building cameras for cinema.
Canon's first (new, I think they built cinema film cameras decades ago) entry into movie production is indeed a formidable competitor for the AF100 or FS100. But the President of Canon didn't fly out to LA to announce the C300 -- he came out to announce the new division.
And, thanks to Red, the marketplace is changing and people expect more and this new Canon division will be producing cameras for the emerging new markets.
Thinking in these terms -- the impact is interesting. Panasonic has their "broadcast" division (now "Solutions," right?), and Sony has the cinema cameras for which they had to buy a studio to be used, but which of the Japanese companies has a dedicated "cinema" division? Actually, this new division will be competing with Red, Panavision, Arri, etc. And, does anyone expect Canon to be filing for bankruptcy anytime soon? Conversely, is there anyone certain that Red will still exist a decade from now?
So, yes, the C300 is not "historic." But, the new division from Canon may be, and is new competition in a market segment with traditionally very little competition.
Obviously, the Scarlet is more interesting than the C300 (priced at $5500 the C300 would have been a hit). And assuming Scarlet is reliable, I plan to buy one or two next year. But, I think the Scarlet vs. C300 really misses the entire point of an all new division with an all new mission from Canon.
Canon's first (new, I think they built cinema film cameras decades ago) entry into movie production is indeed a formidable competitor for the AF100 or FS100. But the President of Canon didn't fly out to LA to announce the C300 -- he came out to announce the new division.
And, thanks to Red, the marketplace is changing and people expect more and this new Canon division will be producing cameras for the emerging new markets.
Thinking in these terms -- the impact is interesting. Panasonic has their "broadcast" division (now "Solutions," right?), and Sony has the cinema cameras for which they had to buy a studio to be used, but which of the Japanese companies has a dedicated "cinema" division? Actually, this new division will be competing with Red, Panavision, Arri, etc. And, does anyone expect Canon to be filing for bankruptcy anytime soon? Conversely, is there anyone certain that Red will still exist a decade from now?
So, yes, the C300 is not "historic." But, the new division from Canon may be, and is new competition in a market segment with traditionally very little competition.
Obviously, the Scarlet is more interesting than the C300 (priced at $5500 the C300 would have been a hit). And assuming Scarlet is reliable, I plan to buy one or two next year. But, I think the Scarlet vs. C300 really misses the entire point of an all new division with an all new mission from Canon.
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
I forgot about the Canon Scoopic... first 16mm camera I ever shot with...
combatentropy
Veteran
Canon should move more quickly now that they have a shop right there were pros can just waltz in and give feedback. "As a local research and development center, staff will assess market demands and expectations for new professional imaging technology" --- http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ca...rt-center-premieres-in-los-angeles-2011-10-12
Another good thing from the announcement would be if Nikon and even Leica decide to make cinema cameras. I've been thinking all three should have entered the fray since digital 35mm movie cameras started coming out years ago. I'm sure it's been obvious to the engineers. They could become the new Arri, Aaton, and Panavision of the 21st century. Sometimes it takes a lot of marketing hoopla, though, like Canon's press event, to get the attention of executives. The bigwigs at Nikon and Leica and maybe even Casio are saying to themselves, "If Canon is doing it, why shouldn't we?"
Avid Media Composer 6 was the best announcement - 64 bit on OS X, Aja, Blackmagic and Matrox supported hardware, handles tons of camera formats including RED, and eases the pain for those who do not want to move to FCP X from FCP 7. Scarlet appears to be the winner over Canon in the camera news, but it always appears that RED cameras have many firmware updates, good or bad, and every Panasonic, Sony, or Canon camera work pretty much right out of the box as advertised for the duration of their life, again a good or bad depending on how you like updating firmware
What's different now as opposed to every other time in the history of "cinema" is distribution. We're entering a new age of electronic distribution that, in about a decade, will likely mean you can produce your film over the weekend and have it available on every television set in America by Tuesday. This means, simultaneously, the future is better than we can imagine and trashier than we can imagine. Also, what we now call "TV ads" aren't going away, and every serious web site will require video.
So, from the camera makers perspective, this means more demand than ever before. More demand means room for new competition. New competition drives down cost to consumers.
In historical business terms, Canon entering digital cinema only three years after the success of the 5Dm2 is rather quick. The issue is that if you leave the Japanese to themselves, they'll do that "wink" at each other style competition. Add a possibly insane American manufacturer into the equation to get all these Japanese companies actually competing -- and the future actually does become more exciting than we currently dare to imagine. Bigger sensors (imagine the /2 "crop factor"), better and cheaper glass, better codecs, better workflows, etc.
So -- I agree with you. We want Nikon and Casio and all the rest competing. One way for us to help accomplish this at the moment -- is to applaud Red and claim to the world that we're buying Reds and that we're laughing at 50Mbps 1080p. The truth is that you'd be shocked at how quickly the Japanese are capable of responding -- if they're pushed.
I disagree. If this C300 did clean ISO 25,000 and usable at ISO 50,000 recorded to a 100 or 350 Mbps intraframe codec -- we'd all be more impressed with the C300. Actually, I'm more excited about the 1Dx for motion capture than I am for the C300 or Scarlet.
Looking at the past -- the smart bet is that the 5D Mark 3 will have the video capabilities of the 1Dx with dumbed down photography capabilities and possibly less impressive ISO performance. And, it's clear it'll be released in 2012, the only question being -- will B&H mail it to you in the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd quarter.
The difference between the 5D Mark 3 and the new "C" DSLR is that the "C" DSLR will do 4k, or so they claim. You can bet your farm the 5Dm3 won't do 4k.
So, responding to you, the 1Dx specs "bode" very, very well for the 5D Mark 3. At half the price of a Scarlet package with potentially better low light, that 1Dx will make quite a splash relative to motion imaging.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I'm not so optimistic about the future canon DSLRs in the non-pro range (5D3 and below)
we've already seen Canon cripping a product to protect their more expensive offering (1DX, C300, clean HDMI out), so it wouldn't surprise me to see Canon saying "these nice codecs are for the pros, anything below the 1DX stays 4:2:0 H.264 at 24Mbps" (17Mbps if we are very unlucky)
which would suck big time
that super-duper Digic DV III that powers the C300, XF300, etc, can also be found on the $800 HF200 consumer camcorder, which, guess what, only shoots 4:2:0 H.264 at 24Mbps
I'm on the brink of buying my first lens that would work on Canon but not on Sony or Nikon (all the previous ones are Leitz vintage), and this fear is making it a surprisingly difficult step
we've already seen Canon cripping a product to protect their more expensive offering (1DX, C300, clean HDMI out), so it wouldn't surprise me to see Canon saying "these nice codecs are for the pros, anything below the 1DX stays 4:2:0 H.264 at 24Mbps" (17Mbps if we are very unlucky)
which would suck big time
that super-duper Digic DV III that powers the C300, XF300, etc, can also be found on the $800 HF200 consumer camcorder, which, guess what, only shoots 4:2:0 H.264 at 24Mbps
I'm on the brink of buying my first lens that would work on Canon but not on Sony or Nikon (all the previous ones are Leitz vintage), and this fear is making it a surprisingly difficult step
arroway
Well-known member
You can bet the farm it won't have 1080 60p or clean HDMI out either...
Or RAW...
Or 10 bit 422... (we'll be lucky to get 8 bit)
It probably (still) won't even have a headphone jack.
I agree that the two recently announced cameras bode well for vastly improved ISO performance in the 5DM3...but that's about it.
We'll see.
At this point, as a previous 5DM2 and current T2i owner with a fair bit of Canon glass, I'm far more interested in the GH3.
I'd like to see a VG-20-form-factor Panasonic m4/3 video camera with 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC-LongG at 50 Mbps (24p) with a 60p, 75- to 80-Mbps extension. Clean 10-bit HDMI out would be nice. All for about $1,600 (with 14-140 lens). I don't really need XLRs, although if they didn't add more than $100, OK.AF100 successor with AF100 front end and HPX250 back end, 10 bit AVCIntra, with "Panasonic Log" optiona at AF100 price point = win win win for me, if you are listening, Jan
Of course, what would be very interesting would be a $6,000 4K AF4000. Global shutter, HDR capability, RAW output as well as 4:4:4 12-bit AVC-Intra. Maybe in a few years.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
Agreed - However, it should be noted that the Red One MX still has certain capabilities that the Scarlet does not Like higher framerate/resolution/data rate combos, inexpensive huge drives for media, and a way (via Birger) to pull focus properly and slowly with a remote marking wheel on Canon lenses. I appreciate that they left some exclusive value to the Red One owners - so in some cases you would still prefer a Red One for a given shoot.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
If you do high-end colour grading, then 4K is a huge boon for secondaries. It is also a huge boon for razor-sharp reframes. Just because you do not understand a value doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Robert Ruffo
Well-known member
have you ever worked with RedRaw? It is simply not true that 422 DNXHD has the same gradeability. This is simply incorrect information.
The 7D had 720/60p after the 5Dm2. The new line of Digic 5 consumer cameras have 120 and 240 fps (at reduced resolution). So, the no 60p isn't a smart bet.
Do you need clean HDMI out for recording if the on-board system is recording either 100 Mpbs or 350 Mpbs mpeg-4 intraframe?
The headaches of "RAW" will be celebrated on this forum after everyone owns their Scarlet. Oh, wait. Does Scarlet record RAW?
Do we know this? If Chuck Westfall was correct and its 350 Mbps mpeg-4, then it's almost impossible it would be 4:2:0. If the Canon Europe sales guy was correct and it's about 100 Mbps intraframe, then 4:2:0 isn't certain, and even if it was, that's a darn strong recording format.
Lucky to get 8 bit? Are you implying that Canon usually screws people with six bit? Heck, their newest consumer Digic 5 cameras record 35Mbps mpeg-4 -- and that's about 14 Mpbs faster than AVCCAM (yeah, yeah, I know, "b frames.")
For any pro application the only thing on-board audio is good for is "scratch" audio for sound sync. I wouldn't be plugging in headphones to an HDSLR even if it had a jack.
Yes, those awful "VisaVision" sized sensors, inconvenient 0 crop factors, nasty big pixels, affordable classic lenses, troublesome wide angles, unfortunate TV credits, unnecessary film festival awards -- lets avoid all those headaches and move on to the future -- the GH3.
GioCanales
Active member
This is the reason why Canon hasn't released a 5D MK3 or similar camera yet, there is no doubt about it.