Jump to content

What REALLY prompted Canon suddenly to get their act together with video?


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Probably the biggest deterrent for me from the EOS R was the rolling shutter. Subpar high ISO performance and lack of 10 bit internal or full frame 4k was also a bummer. 

Do you have any experience with old Blackmagic cameras? A lot of people rave about the color from the original Pocket (1080p version). 

Some of what you say sounds a bit over the top but at the end the day the majority of the industry seems to agree with you as Arri is the golden standard next to Canon, for high end work that is(if the Oscars are a good example of high end)

I don't have any experience with the original pocket 1080p model or original global shutter models.  I have been tempted to pick up one of the original models for color reference.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

...and posting no links to work or a reel. Does your first name happen to be Ebrahim?

Yes, in Egypt, right?

What you haven't heard? Canon Egypt gave the green-light for the R5 dentist undergrad beta test program! 🎬 🎬 🎬 

Posted Images

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 

Some of what you say sounds a bit over the top but at the end the day the majority of the industry seems to agree with you as Arri is the golden standard next to Canon, for high end work that is(if the Oscars are a good example of high end)

Geez, the budget of some of those Oscar nominated films.    Going back over those films, some of them even had their lenses custom made (one of them custom made using Arri master primes as the BASE!!!). 

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

I found this interesting regards Oscar nominated films.    https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/cameras-lens-2020-oscar-contenders-best-cinematography-1202187839/    Most are not going to be using small hybrid cameras that most of us here use and they are going to be using full size large rigged cameras for the most part which means those sort of things (especially if they have multi million dollar budgets....their funders no doubt EXPECT them to be using high end stuff in many cases).     Very few of those DPs even mentioned colour (one did that I noted) and it was lots of others things in why they chose their cameras....a LOT of them used film!

DP's don't mention color because they don't need to mention color.  Big budget film have a colorist if needed but it that colorist need to fix color on a film, fix mistakes, then that's costly.  We also don't talk about cine cameras that much on the EOS. We tend to get the most out of cameras we can afford.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Super8 said:

DP's don't mention color because they don't need to mention color.  Big budget film have a colorist if needed but it that colorist need to fix color on a film, fix mistakes, then that's costly.  We also don't talk about cine cameras that much on the EOS. We tend to get the most out of cameras we can afford.

What’s the downside of using something like lut calc to transform say slog to arri log. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Super8 said:

That answer is through experience and research.  

Translation:

Your argument is based on an appeal to authority fallacy.

Because inherently your approach is subjective, and has no absolute truth to it. 

Thus the point remains: "color science is subjective", you have not disproved that. (which is a pity, I personally wish this statement could be disproved!)

We could have one "expert" saying a RED Epic MX has "better color science" than a Sony PMW-F55, only for another "expert" to come say the opposite. Or that a Panasonic Varicam LT looks better than a Canon C300mk2, only for another "expert" to say the reverse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Super8 said:

DP's don't mention color because they don't need to mention color.  Big budget film have a colorist if needed but it that colorist need to fix color on a film, fix mistakes, then that's costly.  We also don't talk about cine cameras that much on the EOS. We tend to get the most out of cameras we can afford.

Which brings us back full circle.

It is YOUR subjective opinion, while others have different opinions and if it was all that mattered, the DPs WOULD all be listing it as a reason for choosing what they do.      Some of those reasons were very interesting with some using the best gear they could find (or even having stuff made for them) while others went almost the other way (one matching the film as close as possible to an original using SD and as they put it, barely HD footage alongside modern stuff.

Look, no one is saying your OPINION is wrong (opinions can not be really), but let others have their own  different opinions without proclaiming they are wrong.

I use a variety of cameras but since I am a low light low life, there is NOTHING I would still take over my original A7s and (apart from auto WB issues), I find the colours to be great (out of the camera where i mostly just shoot bands for stills and the odd song) and especially in really low light when it still has greater DR than just about any camera.     In light that low it looks great even with lower DR than in good light because the human eye also has much worse DR in really low light (something to do with rods and cones).    I also like that i can use fast primes as zooms for Jpeg stills and video.   I find I have to put my Canon cameras in vivid mode for jpegs and video.

    

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

You are comparing a camera that is 10 times the cost of the other one. It would be a schocker if it was the other way around. A comparison between an eos R and pocket 6K is a more fair comparison.

Exactly. (or Z Cam E2-S6 vs BMPCC6K, I'd say they have a much closer market overlap than EOS R vs Pocket 6K. Plus the E2-S6 vs Pocket 6K used to be quite close in price too, before the 6K's slash in price)

 

  

4 hours ago, Super8 said:

Look at the Canon and P6K video above and tell me which one you subjectively like better?

@Super8 so you're agreeing with me now that color science is subjective?

As if there is a way to approach this analytically, I'm all ears. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Translation:

Your argument is based on an appeal to authority fallacy.

Because inherently your approach is subjective, and has no absolute truth to it. 

Thus the point remains: "color science is subjective", you have not disproved that. (which is a pity, I personally wish this statement could be disproved!)

We could have one "expert" saying a RED Epic MX has "better color science" than a Sony PMW-F55, only for another "expert" to come say the opposite. Or that a Panasonic Varicam LT looks better than a Canon C300mk2, only for another "expert" to say the reverse. 

You have only proved that color science is subjectively what you THINK looks best to YOU.

That's it. 

I wasn't trying to disprove THAT. 

I said ALL ALONG that what color you like is subjective because you are going on WHAT YOU LIKE. 

What I did prove in the VIDEOS that YOU REFUSE to comment on and ignore is that Canon produces better color science that's easy to color correct and grade.  I gave you side by side clean, even and good color from Canon, vs the opposite color from Black Magic.  You seem to be cherry picking what you think I said.

If you get into the details of the video links I provided you would realize that you couldn't get the BMP6K footage to look like Canon but you could get that Canon footage to look like the P6K.

 

 

Just now, IronFilm said:

Exactly. (or Z Cam E2-S6 vs BMPCC6K, I'd say they have a much closer market overlap than EOS R vs Pocket 6K. Plus the E2-S6 vs Pocket 6K used to be quite close in price too, before the 6K's slash in price)

 

  

@Super8 so you're agreeing with me now that color science is subjective?

As if there is a way to approach this analytically, I'm all ears. 

The Ursa Mini 4.6 G2 footage looked horrible.  The Canon is not 10x the cost of the Ursa Mini 4.6 G2.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Super8 said:

What's easier to grade is not subjective. 

Cool, so now tell me how anybody can determine which camera is easier to grade than another? (and you can't dodge the question again by just giving easy uncontroversial statements such as "ARRI is easier to grade a Pocket", as 1) that doesn't answer the question 2) does nothing to improve our knowledge to understand how to apply this judgement to a general case, such as E2 vs P4K or any of a million other matchups??)


So how anybody can determine which camera is easier to grade than another? Without using an personal judgement whatsoever, as that has biases and is subjective. 

You can't make broad vague blanket statements such as "raw is always better than 8bit to grade". 

Because what if we're comparing two cameras which are both raw?

Plus of courses there will always be outlier exceptions who'd disagree even with a statement such as  "raw is always better than 8bit to grade"! (I'm certain there is someone out there in the world who thinks C200 4K 8bit footage is easier to grade than RED ONE M 4K raw footage!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Cool, so now tell me how anybody can determine which camera is easier to grade than another?

You can tell which camera is easier to grade by color grading footage from various cameras.  It's called putting in the time.   When you start pushing color around it becomes clear which ones are easier to work with.  When you're working with footage from around the world shot on everything from ARRI, RED and down to Canon and the rest, and your job is to take a final locked down edit that has a mix of all these cameras and make them match to the approved color grade look fro the client. Then you have a good idea which cameras grade the easiest.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Super8 said:

You can tell which camera is easier to grade by color grading footage from various cameras. 

So once again, you're doing this:
 

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Translation:

Your argument is based on an appeal to authority fallacy.

Because inherently your approach is subjective, and has no absolute truth to it. 

Thus the point remains: "color science is subjective", you have not disproved that. (which is a pity, I personally wish this statement could be disproved!)

We could have one "expert" saying a RED Epic MX has "better color science" than a Sony PMW-F55, only for another "expert" to come say the opposite. Or that a Panasonic Varicam LT looks better than a Canon C300mk2, only for another "expert" to say the reverse. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, zerocool22 said:

No but still 4 or 5 times! At canon c500II prices you should compare it to a red dragon epic.

I do think the EOS is filled with BM Ursa Mini 4.6 owners that have said the BM Ursa Mini 4.6 and other BM cameras are better than Canon cameras and have better color science.  Now all of a sudden when you see evidence that Canon color science is real and better than BM you say the Canon camera cost to much? 

 

10 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

No but still 4 or 5 times! At canon c500II prices you should compare it to a red dragon epic.

So really what we have is the case that Black Magic camera doesn't have a true cinema camera that we can buy?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Super8 said:

I do think the EOS is filled with BM Ursa Mini 4.6 owners that have said the BM Ursa Mini 4.6 and other BM cameras are better than Canon cameras and have better color science.  Now all of a sudden when you see evidence that Canon color science is real and better than BM you say the Canon camera cost to much? 

 

So really what we have is the case that Black Magic camera doesn't have a true cinema camera that we can buy?  

Black Magic doesn't have a camera that can match something 3x its price, no. But a cinema camera is more than just color. Ergonomics have a lot to do with it. 

My reasons for purchasing an Ursa were many. Low rolling shutter at high resolutions, high speed at high resolutions, incredibly cheap price point (used at $1600), really good dynamic range, RAW at all frame rates and resolutions. Of course I was told by many it has great color science which maybe isn't true. 
 

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

So once again, you're doing this:
 

 

6 hours ago, Super8 said:

Like your comment about BRAW files you're looking at this too legalistically.

I think both of you are just running in circles at this point. 

Informing a person by saying "this is better and I know due to my experience", is often a poor way to convince someone. Its kind of like my dad saying "listen to me because I am your father", (older more experienced).

If something is definitively true it should be able to be proven by scientific means. 

Maybe Super8 simply doesn't have the technical knowledge to explain his opinion. That of course doesn't mean he is wrong. A colorist just needs to know what looks good and how to achieve it, having the technical background to prove it isn't needed. I can say gravity exists and be right without being able to explain how and why. 

I certainly know how to expose an image and use a camera, but if you were to ask how that camera works my knowledge is very limited. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Black Magic doesn't have a camera that can match something 3x its price, no. But a cinema camera is more than just color. Ergonomics have a lot to do with it. 

My reasons for purchasing an Ursa were many. Low rolling shutter at high resolutions, high speed at high resolutions, incredibly cheap price point (used at $1600), really good dynamic range, RAW at all frame rates and resolutions. Of course I was told by many it has great color science which maybe isn't true. 
 

I think both of you are just running in circles at this point. 

Informing a person by saying "this is better and I know due to my experience", is often a poor way to convince someone. Its kind of like my dad saying "listen to me because I am your father", (older more experienced).

If something is definitively true it should be able to be proven by scientific means. 

Maybe Super8 simply doesn't have the technical knowledge to explain his opinion. That of course doesn't mean he is wrong. A colorist just needs to know what looks good and how to achieve it, having the technical background to prove it isn't needed. I can say gravity exists and be right without being able to explain how and why. 

I certainly know how to expose an image and use a camera, but if you were to ask how that camera works my knowledge is very limited. 

The URSA Mini Pro 4.6K G2 is $5,995 and that would be almost half the price.   I'm not sure if you guys remember your comments defending Blackmagic and I know people have said it blows away the C500.

As I said in my last few post, I'm not going to get technical about scope readings or power windows or what percentage of correction and labor goes into fixing certain footage.  For 1) It's a sliding scale based on a lot of factors 2) It's about what cameras have the best balanced color value and color luma, this doesn't over ride the fact that footage can be over or under exposed 3) I have shot BMP6K footage that looked amazing with great color. 4) I might suck as a colorist but I know what I've seen with various footage that I've corrected that had to match and live in the same edit. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The URSA Mini Pro 4.6K G2 is $5,995 and that would be almost half the price.   I'm not sure if you guys remember your comments defending Blackmagic and I know people have said it blows away the C500.

As I said in my last few post, I'm not going to get technical about scope readings or power windows or what percentage of correction and labor goes into fixing certain footage.  For 1) It's a sliding scale based on a lot of factors 2) It's about what cameras have the best balanced color value and color luma, this doesn't over ride the fact that footage can be over or under exposed 3) I have shot BMP6K footage that looked amazing with great color. 4) I might suck as a colorist but I know what I've seen with various footage that I've corrected that had to match and live in the same edit. 

 

Well the C500 mk2 is 16,000 while the Ursa G2 is 6,000, a little more than twice the price. 

You can find used Ursa Mini pro 4.6k (with BRAW) for around $3500 these days though. In that price range the C200 is the competitor not the C500.  The C200 RAW files are big though and it has no intermediate 10 bit codec and less dynamic range. The C200 also doesn't have some pro features like time code. It also goes for more used, usually $4500 upwards. 

One of the things that sold me on getting the URSA besides the crazy cheap price($1600) was after seeing some footage from it that I was editing. It was just shot in prores LT 1080p, but the files looked really good. That said it was under nice lighting conditions so it wasn't really a good test of color. 

Honestly after hearing what you've had to say about the URSA, I am pretty disappointed. I've heard a lot of people say the URSA comes close to an Alexa but it sounds like that was all hype. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Well the C500 mk2 is 16,000 while the Ursa G2 is 6,000, a little more than twice the price. 

You can find used Ursa Mini pro 4.6k (with BRAW) for around $3500 these days though. In that price range the C200 is the competitor not the C500.  The C200 RAW files are big though and it has no intermediate 10 bit codec and less dynamic range. The C200 also doesn't have some pro features like time code. It also goes for more used, usually $4500 upwards. 

One of the things that sold me on getting the URSA besides the crazy cheap price($1600) was after seeing some footage from it that I was editing. It was just shot in prores LT 1080p, but the files looked really good. That said it was under nice lighting conditions so it wasn't really a good test of color. 

Honestly after hearing what you've had to say about the URSA, I am pretty disappointed. I've heard a lot of people say the URSA comes close to an Alexa but it sounds like that was all hype. 

This is probably a good example of color coming out of the URSA (lots of common mixed lighting situations etc..) I have to say it certainly isn't impressive looking, though the dynamic range looks good. 

The Canon 1DX III would be the better comparison to the URSA Mini Pro 4.6 G2

The 1DX III is still miles ahead of anything BM offers.   Everyone can disagree with my comments about which cameras are easier to color grade but look at the footage that Canon produces and look at Blackmagic footage. 

Since we are talking about Canon in this thread and people are dogging Canon for GREAT specs, saying the cripple hammers is coming.  All that said that might want to look at image quality and color next time they think about buying or renting a camera for that next gig or client. 

At the end of the day no one care what you shot your footage with they just care how it looks and what you created. 

 

 

 

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...