Policar

The image quality is going to be nuts. Better than Alexa. Autofocus via iPad with 80% of the sensor covered should be AMAZING for Ronin ops. But the 30fps maximum (120fps crop) and lack of 50Mbps XF codec are DUMB. The lack of great slow motion isn't the end of the world. Chances are the quality will be great (full pixel read out, but cropped) and it will be sharp enough to cut. But it's still a sore omission. The lack of a 50Mbps codec is stupid. I never thought I'd say Canon is too forward-thinking, but they are! Looks like it is dual gain path, so dynamic range will be extended in the highlights rather than pulled out of the shadows. The image quality from this camera is what will sell it. Inclusion of RAW is a big surprise to me. Let's just hope the C500 Mk III has some real slow motion options. Image quality will be best of any camera out there (including Dragon and Alexa), as will low light given the sensor size (and extended DR in low light/high contrast situations is particularly valuable!) but compatibility and ergonomics might not be all that. What a backward world! Of course I want one.

Don't love the Sony look, but the DR is good. Not quite 14 stops (nowhere near the Alexa) but a bit better than the mirror less crowd and C300 though how much better in practice is debatable. Anyhow, this information seems similar to what I mentioned last week, which is to say correct.

If it's real, Canon needs to fire its graphic designers. But it isn't. It's not just fake, it's ridiculous. What this artist lacks in talent he makes up for in wild imagination. Though, shockingly... a few of those specs are spot-on!

Canon C300 mark II. $12000-$1600. Better slow motion, but still inferior to Sony and with some trade-offs. Somewhat less skew but not perfect. Improved but familiar form factor. A bit more ENG-friendly. A bit closer to the C100 of all things. Best color rendering in class, finally surpassing the Alexa rather than being "second best." Great skin tones if a bit more magenta than before to avoid the green cast, great highlight roll-off unlike everyone else. Low light on par with C100 Mk II, a stop or two worse than the A7S. Improved AF with some "prosumer" features. 15-16 stops of DR. Possibly through an "HDR" mode facilitated by dual gain or something like red's HDRx, but mind-blowing and exciting DR nonetheless. This is the killer app. It's why I'm going to get one. 4k and sharper 4k than the competition. Sharper than 1DC by a lot. More likely XAVC than prores, though. Excellent backwards compatibility... you can use your C300 as a B cam on a 1080p shoot. But... that's just about a given. So... What I'm HOPING for is a better Ronin.

​I judge cameras by images, not specs. So all I've got is... I've shot with them all... and this is the one that shoots the best looking 1080p footage (again, what I need to deliver). Its popularity is more due to the ergonomics and easy workflow, but the image is much stronger, too. Anyhow, just wait a few weeks.

The CX00 line has the best image rendering available short of the Alexa (worse highlight rendering than the Dragon, but much better noise pattern and low light and color) and this is a STEAL. But the C300 Mark II has some features that are really disruptive (and oddly forward-thinking) so investing now might not be the best choice, especially among the IQ-centric audience that populates enthusiast sites. Canon (and Arri) are after the "pro" market. Which is all about "good enough" out of the box, because when you're "pro" you get paid and so hiring a crew and post team costs money. The focus isn't image quality. A low bitrate is desirable, as is an image that doesn't need (or have) much flexibility for grading... It's decent 1080p that has small file sizes in an easy-to-ingest format that attract the pros. Not because they're better or more talented (clearly they aren't judging by the quality of reality tv) but because they care about money first and a camera with small file sizes, amazing ergonomics, and a great image out of the box gets you the most for you money. For enthusiasts who enjoy grading and 4k and want the best IQ (if you like raw, don't get Canon–I can't stand raw because it wastes my time, so I love Canon)... go with something that's more techie and more fun. For wedding videographers and professional shooters on the low end, get what your clients prefer (Canon or Alexa more toward the high end). That said, I like to judge images based on images and not specs. Canon's 1080p is sharper than anyone else's (not sharper than others' 4k, though, but 99% of the world is delivering to 1080p) and their colors are better than anyone other than maybe Arri. Sony's images have been garbage until SLOG 3 started to fix saturation clamping and color matrices but it's still nowhere near Canon level. Dragon Color is quite good, however, on the Red side. But the saturation clamping, skin tones, etc from Canon... brilliant. WideDR is a fantastic color space and Canon Log is sort of functional for what it is. The C300 isn't an enthusiast product, it's for pros (who care about money they can make back over image quality and about ergonomics; this is why the 1DX is 18MP to the enthusiast's 5DSR's 50+ MP but the 1DX has killer AF and durability) and so it is hard to recommend Canon to most people on this forum. Especially when the C300 Mark II outclasses the Alexa. But it won't come cheap.

Canon is going to take a bit of the opposite approach from Red's "DMSC" model. More special-purpose items, but more price/performance for each given its task. Even the new high-res 5D illustrates this drastic change in strategy. You get what you want in a given body, but nothing else. Fwiw, the C100 dropped to $2999 and C300 $6999 today, making the two best cameras in their price range now the two best cameras for the price. I know it's unpopular to judge a camera by its image, ergonomics, and workflow rather than its specs, but the market has already demonstrated that this is true. I'd still wait for NAB. Something pretty insane is coming and you're going to wish you had deep pockets.

Don't take that table as gospel. I'm sure there are other studies that are more (or maybe less) favorable to higher resolutions. But the 4k hype is largely marketing. I think we've pushed resolution really far and we're really lacking in color gamut, dynamic range, framerate, etc. Dynamic range helps low light, too. The old trick of having one lightbulb blow out while underexposing the rest... that feels more real on an HDR image on an HDR tv. I never meant to get into an argument. I just wanted to say that there are many metrics that define what's at the top (color, resolution, dynamic range, low light, sensor size, "look," etc.) and that NAB will be a really good year this year. And things will change. But what matters most... composition, story, performance, etc. That never changes.

*I used sharpness and resolution interchangeably in the above paragraph. So dumb. What I meant is that contrast and resolution equal sharpness. And one needs more work than the rest. There are so many factors it's all just what you want.

http://cdn.referencehometheater.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Ideal-Distances-Chart.jpg?dfb8f9 Ten feet is the average viewing distance. If you need 4k get it. If your clients are demanding it they demand it. I have 20/15 vision and can't tell the difference on my reference-level plasma against the Sony 4k LCDs I've seen EXCEPT WHEN VIEWING SMALL TEXT UP CLOSE or at the Arclight, which is about as good a screening facility as you'll find, except possibly when reading text the edges are enhanced in 4k. Sharpness is based on local contrast and resolution, both about equally important. The contrast ratio of a very high end screen is about 1000:1, ten stops. Movie theaters less. (The best plasmas approach 10000:1, but there are no 4k plasmas.) The eye can see maybe nearly twenty stops of DR. That's a contrast ratio of a million to one. With a screen larger than 80'' at closer than ten feet, 4k might improve your perceived sharpness by as much as a factor of two (in each dimension) if you have perfect vision and perfect source material. Whereas higher contrast screens can improve your perceived sharpness by a factor of a thousand. Those of you who've shot 4x5 Velvia will undoubtedly know how much sharper it looks than any digital presentation of an image--when it's on the light table. But that has more to do with its higher DMAX than it does with its greater sharpness. Sharp as 4x5 is, the IQ80 matches it. The contrast ratio of a computer monitor doesn't match a light table, however.

There are dimensions other than resolution to be explored. The C300 will be viable for delivery to 95% of clients for a very very long time, but when it becomes dated, it won't be because of its lack of resolution. The 1080p out of that thing looks sharper than the Alexa's 2.8k, which is already sharper than 35mm film, which is already sharp enough. Of course the ability to reframe that 4k provides is pretty nice. 2k is already sharper than the human eye can see on any tv screen less than 80" (at normal viewing distances) and any seat not in the first third of a theater. There's a reason the leap from SD to HD was huge but not from HD to 4k except when you look closely at the screen as you do with an iPhone or laptop. We've already gone about as far as we can go toward matching the human eye's spatial resolution. Retina screens caught on because of how close you hold them but for theatrical exhibition and televisions, 2k is good enough. Completely. Not for IMAX or whatever, though, or for massive home projectors or 80''+ tvs. There's a market for which 4k matters, it's just not big. Ironically, if it catches on anywhere it will be on computers phones. Small screens held close. Not big. Spatially, the eye can see about 60fps before it all blurs together and everything looks equally smooth. 24fps has caught on aesthetically, but slow motion is quite popular and HFR may catch on after Avatar 2. This is a dimension that might be explored further and that the C300, for instance, can't really push far into. We can see gobs more DR than any camera or tv currently produces or captures. This is somewhere more worthy of exploration than the jump from HD to 4k. FF/Vistavision isn't just great for using cheap vintage still lenses and cheap still lenses in general. It also provides a large enough sensor to shoot proper anamorphic, something currently only the higher-specced Alexas and A7S can do properly. rec709 is a very tiny gamut. This is another dimension that is worthy of being expanded upon. rec2020 is coming. Low light will just improve more and more. Skew decrease more and more. There are much more exciting things than the jump from 1080p to 4k on the horizon. And closer than most realize... Again, I'm just saying if your finger is hovering over that F5 or FS7 buy button and you don't need it for a project in the next month... ...hold off a little longer. It's worth it.

I'm not trying to argue with you because I am not much of a fan of Red, Black Magic, etc. or even Sony's undercooked products... I was on one of the early F5 features and that thing was a mess out of the gate. But I think Canon and Arri have gotten it nearly perfect out of the gate. The C300 was a first-gen product that was useable even with its first firmware. Same with the Alexa. Both might have been under-specced, but they shot to known codecs so they were useable in post from day one, too. Some places innovate and still get it right. Those cameras were useable from day one. I don't mean to argue with you because that's all good advice in theory... just... if you're thinking of placing an order for a $10k-$30k camera system now and can rent in the interim, wait until after NAB.

​I say "wait" with specific inside information into both exhibition and acquisition. The next generation of cameras will be a real step up and announced in a month. I'm not saying "wait" as a broad recommendation. I mean it very specifically for those who can afford what's coming next. The Red MX delivers awful color, tonality, and highlight rendering. Horrible low light and tungsten performance. Dreadful imagery, lifeless, and a pain to work with still. If that's good enough for you, though, fine. But I'd steer clear unless you need 4k for really cheap. You're broadly right, however. The upcoming announcements won't make the F35 any less awesome than it was 10 years ago. And fwiw, the Alexa will still be tops after NAB. Or at least close to it. But what's coming next is worth waiting for. Unless you're someone who's blind enough to think the MX produces a good image.

Must have fallen out of the back of a truck. Wish I had the money.

I don't like the F65's look. The Alexa renders colors much more nicely, but I suppose with less detail. The Dragon is a huge improvement from a color and highlight rendering perspective over the MX, which is really pretty bad. Wait until NAB. I have no insider knowledge on the Weapon, but I do know what some other companies are introducing and there's going to be some very amazing products pushing things in exciting new directions. I wish I had a lot more money now than I have right now.

Do you want to direct? Write? Edit? Shoot? Or learn how to use gear? What job do you want? Or just a broad skill-set? First things first: everyone wants to do this stuff. So you need to be likable however you approach it. Or very good looking. Or rich. Or able to make someone else money, which is where skill can come in. Simply: you want people to want to be around you. 99% of the professional non-accredited schools not teaching you one specific skill-set that you can monetize are rip offs, and certainly redundant with what you've learned already, though you can find a silver lining anywhere. You learn less than you'd learn on an actual set, except you're paying rather than getting paid. If you're rich or unmotivated, great. You can get a technical primer there rather than by asking questions on set. Otherwise, work for free, make people like you, network network network. I have heard a few amazing things about Full Sail. I went to one (well two, but dropped out of the second, although it was very good just not right for me) film schools on that list and a crew member recommended that I attend Full Sail to get a leg up, but it's just too expensive. Otherwise I've heard nothing good about these professional programs. They'll guarantee you'll never work in the industry because you'll not only have no marketable skills coming out of them, you'll also be broke. If you're rich, just do what you want, though. That's the first step to making it is already being rich. Professional vfx schools and courses at community colleges (especially those in LA) that focus on training you to get work in camera department or in a vfx house... those are worth it. If you go to one of the accredited top schools listed in that article what you MIGHT get are technical skill-sets, specific craft-based skill-sets (AFI), a group of smart like-minded people also entering the industry with you, a professional network that can get you meetings with top writers/directors/producers, a leg up into the indie world and festival world, a leg up into the advertising world, etc. But each school offers something very different. Many are very very good. Few will teach you what you need to work in the industry. You'll get there by taking an entry-level job after school and working your way up. Or if you make an amazing short or reel, you might get into the indie or advertising world as a director, or be lucky to be the crew member attached to the person who makes it into that world. And that's the networking aspect of it... if you attend a top school, you get connections. You might be having meetings with top producers and directors and show runners weeks after graduating, or even while in school. If you visit a bar in LA and are sociable you might get the same connections. Either way, you have to be likable. But think about what it is you want to do. What job. In what part of the industry. And BE LIKABLE. It's all about networking whether you go to school or not. Look at the reels and shorts produced by students. Look at the work produced by faculty. Look at the list of alumni and how likely they are to help you out. Where I went, it's easier to get into being an assistant or something. I have friends who went to another school and for them it's easy to get a gig as a PA on a tentpole. Different networks lead to different paths. Any path can lead to directing.

I'm not contradicting myself... the switch from film to NLEs was a complex one, with plusses and minuses. Not sure what you mean. Obviously Murch prefers NLEs since, he well, uses them exclusively now. The quotes are in reference to a standing desk rather than a sitting one, fwiw, not a moviola vs an NLE. Well, your quote. I don't recognize the one above it. Fair enough on the rest. I'll give FCPX another look.

Are you kidding, Murch was one of the first prominent editors to switch from film to digital... in fact to Final Cut Pro in the early days. I discussed this when him when we met ten years ago... he bemoaned that NLEs didn't force you to look through every moment as you skipped to the right portion, but recognized the net gain and didn't turn back. That might be the dumbest comment I've read on here... wow. Like a parody of what an uninformed person would say. Fair enough regarding FCP having a different but not necessarily inferior interface, though. I'm an After Effects fan, having used it for 15+ years, but when I see friends use Nuke I appreciate that they can move faster than I can, even if the interface doesn't make any sense to me. I'm curious to try FCPX now, if it's really as fast as Avid and as robust for multiple editors. From what I've seen of friends using it, the interface makes less sense for my workflow, but... I've also heard it's easy to use and fast, and I need to adapt eventually to a new primary NLE. But... how is the SAN support? Support for multiple editors working on multiple machines? Presumably it at least is better in this respect than Premiere. How is the support for dual system sound? With Premiere to Resolve and Pro Tools we had to flatten our timeline into one clop and use an XML and work pretty extensively to organize all our audio tracks for a good OMF and had some problems with the house that mixed it. How is the Resolve/Pro Tools round trip in FCPX for features shot with dual system? What pratfalls have you encountered with the NLE relative to Avid?

So it's a unit-focus lens, but the focusing is done with the taking lens? How well does that work? Definitely sounds like solid competition with the Iscoramas if it's single-focus.

How good is SAN support on FCPX and what about multiple editors working across multiple machines? I'm certainly up for trying it. I need to give FCP7 a rest eventually. Avid is the fastest for logging/capturing/cutting/etc. and will retain its spot at the high end pretty much no matter what (because it's built for efficiency over ease of use, and because it's what everyone knows), but given how bad my experience with Premier has been (and how long in tooth FCP7 is) and how much I prefer FCP7 to Avid (I've never filled adapted to its interface and like the sloppy media management of FCP7 for personal projects) I'd consider giving FCPX a try, especially if the multiple editor support and SAN support are there.

I'd give it a go, but none of my clients work on it.

​The rumor is completely bogus. Those specs are nonsense. Canon is trying to set the C500 Mark II as an Alexa competitor so whatever does end up taking that space will indeed be high end, but anything that rents for under $1000/day is within rich of most indies, so I wouldn't go so far as to say that unless the camera exceeds $100,000, which it won't. The problem is no one other than Arri has made a camera that's anywhere near as good as the Alexa. So the C500s and F55s and even F65s and Dragons of the world will continue to struggle. Canon dominates the low end/wedding videographer (C300, which sells and rents well) market, but it will really struggle to encroach into the high end. Canon appears to have given up on the low end enthusiast market. T4is sell well for video and are good enough for most. Anything better with Canon's name on it would just cannibalize the profitable C100's market share (sold well, rents horribly).

​While that's essentially true for a single editor, when you have a team working on something you need a file structure that's suited for a team, and Avid's bins are more reliable for multiple editors than anything FCP or Premiere has. Avid is also faster in trained hands. The overwhelming majority of major features are cut in Avid not because it results in better edits, but because the workflow is best-suited for teams of editors. FCP7 made some headway into commercials and indie features. FCPX has not.... Warner Bros. was rumored to have a few features being cut in FCPX, of which this is one. The "migrating from iMovie" angle is a valid one, however most film schools have switched from FCP7 (or iMovie) to Avid, anyway, so most editors will be migrating from Avid to Avid... Gone Girl was cut in Premiere Pro, but I find Premiere Pro buggy. It has bad support for multiple editors (merging projects is a nightmare) and sloppy round trips with Resolve and Pro Tools. I can't really agree with you that all NLEs are the same unless you have a massive team to support the bugs and quirks in Premiere, which I don't... Fincher did. What round trip do you use when shooting dual system that delivers a clean OMF to Pro Tools and the native media into Resolve? We couldn't do this without resorting to XML. Lots of gamma issues too when cutting between XAVC and ProRes, same as After Effects. I know a lot of smaller post houses, indies, and preditors are switching to Premiere and finding that it comes up short relative to FCP7, but are hesitant to switch to FCPX due to its interface being unusual. Having not used FCPX, I don't know what the right choice is. Probably Avid.

​I've been saying that for a while, but is it really true? Tv production seems afraid of raw workflows, but at the very high end and the very low end there seems to be a market for it. Not that I'll ever understand why. Red definitely made a brilliant marketing move taking its camera's greatest weaknesses (you need to debayer and downscale to 2k in post and there's no analogue gain) and turning them into its entire marketing campaign. The Red One was so ludicrously immature at launch, but it started a fire. The Dragon has evolved into a respectable machine, and the competition is impressive, too.

​No visible difference between ProRes and RAW on anything other than IMAX good. Even then, 99% of people wouldn't catch a thing. ProRes from the Alexa is flawless, better than Red Raw at high bitrates. Who knows why. You can't change your ISO (digital gain) in prores, but in my experience Alexa footage grades much more flexibly than any Red footage and the log implementation is so far superior to Sony's and Canon's... you just move your gamma slider and it feels like you're moving your exposure. The Alexa is the real deal.