Jump to content

C500 shoot.


Dave Maze

Recommended Posts

I shot this for a company that owns the footage so unfortunately I can't share files with you but I'll post some screen grabs from it on Monday. The camera was so slow. All the old C cameras are slow. But the image from the C500 is undeniably great. We only shot to 4K ProRes HQ as the editors at the company I worked for aren't ready for raw and the turn around needs to be quick. From the dailys I've seen the footage from the C500 with Odyssey looks better than any Epic MX footage I've shot in the past. Idk why we never rented this camera before on RED shoots. I think the RED name holds a lot of value to producers. Idk. But this forum really encouraged me to branch out and try these old slow cameras. I recommend you guys do too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaveAltizer said:

I shot this for a company that owns the footage so unfortunately I can't share files with you but I'll post some screen grabs from it on Monday. The camera was so slow. All the old C cameras are slow. But the image from the C500 is undeniably great. We only shot to 4K ProRes HQ as the editors at the company I worked for aren't ready for raw and the turn around needs to be quick. From the dailys I've seen the footage from the C500 with Odyssey looks better than any Epic MX footage I've shot in the past. Idk why we never rented this camera before on RED shoots. I think the RED name holds a lot of value to producers. Idk. But this forum really encouraged me to branch out and try these old slow cameras. I recommend you guys do too!

Isn't 850 ISO (well, 500-1000 ISO) about standard for base ISO? I don't understand what you mean. Slow to work with? Or did you find the ISO inaccurate or are used to Sonys at base 2000? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate when people say 'fast' or 'slow' about sensitivity. f/1.4 is 'fast'. No it's not. It's sensitive. It lets through a lot of light. Maybe you need the light... maybe you want the depth of field. But I for one, not neccesarily go to f/1.4 because it's 'faster'. I'll be deciding myself if I'm shooting at a high shutterspeed or not, thank you. Hell, might even throw in front a neutral density filter to slow things down.

In that regard, I do not think about sensitivity immediately when someone talks about a camera being 'slow'. I think about how it is to set-up, to go through the menus, to work with. Showing its age, because it's sluggish and old. Of course, I could be wrong, but that's where my mind went reading that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought speed referred to ISO sensitivity? Maybe I am stuck in the film days still... and maybe that's why I still think 850 ISO is fast.

You might have to talk with Zeiss about renaming their super speeds... while I agree that you'll usually want to give your AC at least t2.8 I would rather have the speed when I need it with camera and lenses than have to rent a generator or do a tie in. And I see DPs opening up all the way even on major features to get the sensitivity needed; after all, the Alexa and Red (and film) are comparatively slow. What I don't see is anyone pushing them beyond 1600 ISO (though the C500 I often see going to 3200 ISO, hence my belief that it's not slow--maybe compared with the Varicam it is?).

The OP seems to be an experienced shooter so I have to assume he means speed in terms of sensitivity, but then he mentions the Epic, which is definitely a slower camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Policar said:

I thought speed referred to ISO sensitivity? Maybe I am stuck in the film days still... and maybe that's why I still think 850 ISO is fast.

You might have to talk with Zeiss about renaming their super speeds... while I agree that you'll usually want to give your AC at least t2.8 I would rather have the speed when I need it with camera and lenses than have to rent a generator or do a tie in. And I see DPs opening up all the way even on major features to get the sensitivity needed; after all, the Alexa and Red (and film) are comparatively slow. What I don't see is anyone pushing them beyond 1600 ISO (though the C500 I often see going to 3200 ISO, hence my belief that it's not slow--maybe compared with the Varicam it is?).

The OP seems to be an experienced shooter so I have to assume he means speed in terms of sensitivity, but then he mentions the Epic, which is definitely a slower camera.

I'd be more inclined to couple speed with sound, or if you must the rolling of tape, but not the sensitivity? In photography terms, much to my dislike, it's pretty common that one speaks of faster or slower sensitivity, although, I'd say more related to the f-stop than the ISO. But both would allow you when increased ISO or opened up aperture to shoot the same thing properly exposed at a faster speed. It would allow it too. But what I have a problem with is that the actual result isn't that f/1.4 is faster, or that ISO800 is faster than ISO400, it's that the result is that the image is brighter. In turn, sure you could opt for a higher shutterspeed to counteract the brighter image. But that's never the function of a higher ISO or brighter lens per se (especially with motion pictures, where it's usual to shoot 24p with 180 shutter and that's that). But I'm just probably being oversensitive to those sort of things. :lol: In context though, 'slow' and 'old' I personally coupled to the operation of the camera, not the sensitivity at which it shoots, which you seem to agree with would make more sense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cinegain said:

In context though, 'slow' and 'old' I personally coupled to the operation of the camera, not the sensitivity at which it shoots, which you seem to agree with would make more sense?

I got started shooting film and that was all I shot for a while. So when I shoot digital I'm still approaching it how I did when I shot 16mm. And when I shoot stills I'm approaching it how I did when I shot 120 and 4x5. So while I might expose a little differently for a digital camera, same as I'd expose differently for slide film and color negative, I'm always thinking about it that way. And for me (and I think most film guys) "speed" refers to ISO of the film or stop of the lens set. 

While you're clearly thinking about things in a more complex and advanced way than I am, you'll have to forgive those of us who are old and slow ourselves. I think it's worth respecting some of these old terms if only because the plurality of shooters still abide by them and they do have a definitive and clear meaning. If you ask any DP about a camera's speed, they won't think about ergonomics, which concern the AC and operator more than the DP, anyway. So while most people here are approaching things on a more holistic and aware level and don't need to respect such outdated ways of thinking, I still think respecting some of the old terminology will help with guys like me who still use that outdated approach. The OP seems like an experienced shooter and anyone with any experience on set would use the term "speed" correctly, which confuses me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, don't sweat it though, like I've been trying to say: 'it's not you, it's me'. ;) E.g. I also don't like calling quadcopters 'drones', because to me a drone is a unmanned aircraft system mostly used for military operations, so I much prefer using 'quadcopter', 'multirotor' or 'aerial platform' when you speak of a DJI quadcopter. But there's no stopping it, just as a 'fast lens' is associated with the widest aperture sensitivity of a lens, so I might as well have said nothing, but you know... I generally have a hard time shutting up, even if resistance is futile.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Policar said:

I thought speed referred to ISO sensitivity? Maybe I am stuck in the film days still... and maybe that's why I still think 850 ISO is fast.

When you say "speed of the camera," that's where it becomes confusing. I think saying a slow sensor or fast sensor makes sense, since that's directly comparable to a film stock. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

When you say "speed of the camera," that's where it becomes confusing. I think saying a slow sensor or fast sensor makes sense, since that's directly comparable to a film stock. 

That makes sense. But now that cameras sort of are their sensor, it does get muddy. I'm still curious what the OP meant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at the digital cameras of today, as the film stock (recording medium) so I think of how clean the image will look at the cameras rated base ISO, then how far you can push that digitals cameras ISO before it becomes ugly (a noisy digital image) and and hard to grade. I come from the Sony, and Ikegami, betacam days, where we rated the base shooting with gain -3,0,3,6, db, and so on. Then came the 24p look with the sony F900, and the Panasonic DVX 100, this is when we started to bring the cameras ISO rating  back into play. It's still easy to get confused. We still love our fast lenses, and would chose these over slower lenses, so not to have to add the digital gain, or use a higher ISO's that would induce a noisy image, this was mostly in run and gun scenarios where you needed to shoot in available lighting.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...