I really don't see canon doing a paid upgrade on the c100 markII. I think they will continue to over charge for a 1080p camera until the market flat out demands 4k. I know alot of people are saying 4k is so far away but I am not buying that at all. I think tech is picking up at a huge pace and we are going to see 4k get here faster than we think. With that said, shooting 4k and editing in 1080p is awesome, I find myself grabbing my gh4 over my c100 all the time simply because of this factor. But everyone shoots different stuff and some people on here and making a full time living with their camera and 4k does not matter at this point. What ever makes the most money TODAY! thats the camera I would get. But no 4k for c100 mark II, thats just wishful thinking.
C100: Will Canon offer a paid 4k upgrade to C100 MK2 once they release more 4k DSLRs?
- Thread starter Burners
- Start date
I'm not convinced 4K is the wave of the future. Even after all these years of HD, there are still no 1080p broadcasts in the USA other than satellite pay-per-view. Broadcasters are still stuck on 720p and 1080i. We are at minimum a year away from any kind of 4K physical media. Not to mention almost all movies made since the advent of digital cinema cameras will forever be 2K because they were finished at 2K, or even worse, filmed in 2K.
chappelldigital
Well-known member
I shoot on Feb 9th - Final delivery will be to web.
Requirement to get the job was shooting in 4K. Why? I don't know... I'm sure my A7s or C100 can capture it no problem, but the client is demanding it shot in 4K.
I'm renting the FS7 to do it.
This isn't the first time either.
Whether 4K is broadcast, or people have 4K TVs, etc etc doesn't seem to matter... 4K isn't the wave of the future, it seems more the wave of the present for many.
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what people are watching, it matters what the producers want. If you've got a great relationship with a client who trusts you when you say "We don't need 4k," that's great, but more and more-- despite the lack of distribution-- I'm seeing producers/directors/clients request 4k. I can try to explain to them why I think it isn't necessary, but it's so competitive out there, they'll just go to someone who can deliver what they're asking for.
If all producers were cinematographers, great, we'd all be on the same page. But alas, they too often fall victim to marketing, and 4k has more k's than standard HD, and David Fincher used it that one time, so it's gotta be the best choice, right? They talked to a guy who totally knows about this stuff who said 4k was way better, so that's what they want.
edit: that said, I'm still managing to get by just fine shooting web series, documentaries, promo videos, short films, indie features, weddings etc. on my c100 mk I. I'm just saying, I think the way things are moving, whether people watch it or not 4k is going to be inevitable. At some point.
All color films are being converted to 4K, as we speak. The 4K scanners are a big business these days. Those projects shot on 2K digital will be upscaled.
As a side note, FCC just "reclassified" their definition of what broadband is. It went from 4 Mbp/s to 25 and 25 is suitable for 4K streaming. Currently, an average US speed is ~ 10 but the fees are coming down and 30-40 is already affordable. Most cable companies will then make 25 their minimum. (newer compression software should make 4K doable at ~ 12 anyway).
The rest is up to a client. If someone wants their work to be future proof, they'll be ordering a 4K footage, especially since one can get 4K cameras for very reasonable prices these days.
And, of course, there's also a risk that your client will see someone else with a 4K product and feel short changed by settling on the outdated technology. That is the easiest pitch to make.
I understand what your saying, but I am going to bet thats whats people were saying about standard a long time ago. I watch 4k all the time on youtube just fine on my laptop. I shoot footage about four years ago and it was amazing shots of training dogs, and I went to use it as b roll for some footage we shot in the last year. The difference was so much it looked out of focus
I just want footage to last as long as it can, which it wont last forever but longer is better.Second note: "When people say 4k is not needed or coming for while"
If 4k footage has better resolution and you can downscale to 1080p why not shoot in it. Even if the client wanted 1080p why wouldn't we go for the best footage we can get. Just my thought...
Doug_EX
Well-known member
Depends on the project I guess. Why some movies are still shot in 2k when 4k (and even more) cameras are available?I understand what your saying, but I am going to bet thats whats people were saying about standard a long time ago. I watch 4k all the time on youtube just fine on my laptop. I shoot footage about four years ago and it was amazing shots of training dogs, and I went to use it as b roll for some footage we shot in the last year. The difference was so much it looked out of focus
Second note: "When people say 4k is not needed or coming for while"
If 4k footage has better resolution and you can downscale to 1080p why not shoot in it. Even if the client wanted 1080p why wouldn't we go for the best footage we can get. Just my thought...
For wildlife documentary, I bet 4k is becoming popular. Also, when delivering in HD, for punching in during a interview is quite practical. But not all projects needs 4k...sometimes it's not even a good thing.
sonofaresiii
Well-known member
It's more expensive. 4k is great for a lot of things in a lot of ways, even if I think the distribution isn't there YET, but like I mentioned, if I'm doing web series, promo videos, interviews... that doesn't need to be 4k, and it's only going to add to the cost. 4x, in fact, as far as media storage and processing times go.
Now if I'm doing a funded feature or even a tv show, sure, 4k is something i'd look into. The stabilization and look-around area is great all by itself, plus sampling down to 1080p from 4k is gonna provide a very nice image.
RED has been making cameras that shoot 4k since 2007, that was 7 years ago. Arri's Alexa still dominates the major motion picture market and didn't need 4k to do it, neither does their recently released Amira. Nor Sony's f35(used to shoot star wars) or any of the cameras before it. There is a lengthy list of drawbacks/benefits to shooting something @ 4x the resolution, especially if you don't have a legitimate need for it. Future proof and 4k should never be used in the same sentence, you make it sound as if one day it will all STOP at 4k. One day our kids will be shooting 32k or and your "future proof 4k" is going to seem like a dusty old 8mm relic. You are alive now, live for that and not the future.
Its pretty simple, any dp who's worth his salt should be able to read a creative brief(script, treatment, shot list) and have a conversation with the client(director, producer, agency) to make an educated suggestion on what tools are needed to get the job done. If your client is telling you what camera/technology to use, it probably means your a mediocre camera op who can be replaced every time the wind blows. If they have a technical requirement or legitimate need(projection, post production, punch-ins) then obviously that changes things. It all boils down to this, it's a great tool for some things(detail, punch-ins, post, stills, composites, stabilization) and difficult for others(editing, focus, storage, cost, rendering, down scaling).
Last edited:
Actually, ARRI enabled the full sensor imaging, which delivers about 5.7M pixels out of Alexa, enough for a good 4K up-res.
And, after protesting too much, they brought out a 65mm 6K Alexa II anyway.
And most feature directors and DP's still prefer film anyway ... because they have always preferred film. The TV biz has long gone digital - albeit not fully - and up till now 2K or 2.5K was deemed sufficient. That is quickly changing (and without ARRI too).
johnsaccofilms
New member
Canon - Optional 4k Upgrade
Canon - Optional 4k Upgrade
Canon should introduce a 4k upgrade to there C100 mark ii a lot of users would pay a to upgrade there c100 mark ii to have the 4k upgrade even if it just 4k UHD.
Canon - Optional 4k Upgrade
Canon should introduce a 4k upgrade to there C100 mark ii a lot of users would pay a to upgrade there c100 mark ii to have the 4k upgrade even if it just 4k UHD.
puredrifting
Major Contributor
100% this. Canon rarely looks back and improves old models. Hope they hurry up with the C300 MKIII and a C100 MKII UHD capable replacement. It would be so easy to just take CRL recording off of the C200 to make the C100 MKIII but I am not sure if they will do that, I think they might want a physically smaller form factor. Compare the size of the C100 MKII with the C300 MKI and the 100 was physically a lot smaller and lighter which is why I loved my C100 so much, it really wasn't much larger than a DSLR yet was so much more capable at the time.