Jump to content

EOSHD Youtube: Thoughts on the Canon Cinema EOS R5C confirmed for 19th Jan


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe I'm alone here but I totally embrace 8K. Can think of quite a few practical uses for it. If you don't need it you always got oversampled 6K/4K.

That 8K50p RAW is something else. I've been working with (R5) 8K RAW footage recently and I'm loving it. It's that same effect of going 4K from FHD. It can't be unseen (even though I'm on a 5K monitor) and now regular non-oversampled 4K almost feels too soft. 

The really nice thing about R5C is you can jump from 8K/6K/4K/3K in all codecs with FF/S35/S16 crop factors. 

That just gives you so many options. Slashcam article also reveals 4K60p is no longer line skipping and 4K120p also takes a leap forward in IQ.

I'm really starting to warm up to this camera, I was all set on C70 but I'm sort of GASing harder for R5C now.

Couple grades from that video just for fun.. (model deserved better)

 

 

R5C 6K Slashcam grade .png

R5C 4K120 Slashcam grade.png

R5C 8K slashcam.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

No, you're not alone ; )

I don't doubt @herein2020 see the glass half empty for his needs : )

Once they've decided it in a different way :- )

The point is now to find if despite the lack of IBIS, hight cost of f/2.8 native zooms, hybrid switching delay, we can take advantage from 8K/50p RAW on their superior AF and decent stabilization for shaky handheld usage anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
1 hour ago, Django said:

Maybe I'm alone here but I totally embrace 8K. Can think of quite a few practical uses for it. If you don't need it you always got oversampled 6K/4K.

If you're talking zooming and cropping for cinema, count me out.

It looks dreadful. Looks like YouTube not cinema.

Parfocal zoom optics all the way for that purpose.

1 hour ago, Django said:

That 8K50p RAW is something else. I've been working with (R5) 8K RAW footage recently and I'm loving it.

Oversampling 8K to 4K brings marginal benefit for the audience when they watch this on the big screen.

Film viewers aren't the same as pixel peepers.

Don't get me wrong, glad we moved on from line skipped moire 1080p.

But 4K is a sweet spot and anything more is a bit pointless.

For reference see how many Oscar winning films are shot on an Alexa vs the Sony F65 in 8K oversampled to 4K mode.

1 hour ago, Django said:

The really nice thing about R5C is you can jump from 8K/6K/4K/3K in all codecs with FF/S35/S16 crop factors. 

You can on a Sony A1 as well and if you're not bothered about 8K then an A7R IV will produce detailed 4K images in FF/S35 and S16 crop modes for $2500.

1 hour ago, Django said:

R5C 6K Slashcam grade .png

R5C 4K120 Slashcam grade.png

R5C 8K slashcam.png

Nothing unique at all about the images, could have been shot on just about anything else.

Just because it has an 8K badge doesn't make it better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Emanuel said:

I'm also loving this level of playing from native 8K acquisition : )

image.png.8188c05a6edd486d53fd25ea9b8e34a0.png

I see it as a new whole world indeed, so crossing fingers before checking the next tests to come :- )

Right but don't take as a resolution example that re-graded screenshot from a 4K graded compressed YT image.

The crop and grading possibilities from actual RAW 8K footage is on a complete other level!

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Nothing unique at all about the images, could have been shot on just about anything else.

Just because it has an 8K badge doesn't make it better.

Again those are just screenshots from a 4K YT video.. wasn't really trying to make an argument for 8K there, just a regrade for fun..

15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

For reference see how many Oscar winning films are shot on an Alexa vs the Sony F65 in 8K oversampled to 4K mode.

Netflix is where it's moving tech wise and their requirements are +4K with most popular shows/films shot on RED (Monstro/Helium/Weapon) 8K, Venice 6K & Alexa 65.

Hollywood cinema has much lower requirements as the majority of theatres still use 2K projection hence Alexa's long withstanding popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

If you're talking zooming and cropping for cinema, count me out.

It looks dreadful. Looks like YouTube not cinema.

Parfocal zoom optics all the way for that purpose.

To each their own. I'm not trying to win an Oscar with an R5C. 

Zoom/Crop/Panning will have real-use benefits on commercial projects (real-estate, sports, product, interviews etc).

It's really the same kinda benefits 4K gave us in early 201x vs FHD. 

At first people we're complaining about the exact same things (too much skin tone detail, too big file sizes etc). Now look it's the norm. Same in photography with the MP race. I'm not super pro high-res either by the way but there are definitely some pros..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

25 minutes ago, Django said:

To each their own. I'm not trying to win an Oscar with an R5C. 

Exactly, jesus the amount of pedantic rehashing of bullshit that goes on in this forum.

We all know Andrew will have nothing nice to say about any Canon camera or any camera from any company that has slighted him in the past. Thats fine. Opinions and morals and all.

No one on this forum is shooting Oscar level cinema of any kind and if they are they aren't arguing over who needs 8K from a $4.5K entry level cinema camera from Canon debating over screen grabs of a YT video. Hardly anybody is using parfocal cinema zooms to shoot weddings and get the "pure" zoom or punch in. If you are, please stand up so we can applaud you for your dedication to purity.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Django said:

To each their own. I'm not trying to win an Oscar with an R5C. 

Zoom/Crop/Panning will have real-use benefits on commercial projects (real-estate, sports, product, interviews etc).

It's really the same kinda benefits 4K gave us in early 201x vs FHD. 

At first people we're complaining about the exact same things (too much skin tone detail, too big file sizes etc). Now look it's the norm. Same in photography with the MP race. I'm not super pro high-res either by the way but there are definitely some pros..

 

We all know the benefits of 8K on a 4K timeline, they are the same benefits that you get from putting 4K on a 1080P timeline, my only point is that they made so many sacrifices just to wear that 8K badge that ended up removing much more useful features that many more people would actually find useful.

I couldn't care less if Canon went with 8K and it wouldn't bother me one bit if the R5C offered up to 8K resolution, but the sacrifices to me for that resolution really weren't worth it in my opinion.

  • Power - What other camera do you know that's marketed as a hybrid mirrorless camera that needs a laptop power supply just to use with external power? 
  • IBIS - I know this has been beaten to death, but everything about a hybrid mirrorless screams run and gun and handheld, not dollys, gimbals, sliders, etc. Sure, wide angle lenses have problems with IBIS but IBIS is practically a necessity for professional looking handheld footage and with wide angle lenses that's when it makes sense to use a gimbal or other stabilizer. Let's not forget that the RAW modes don't even support digital stabilization so you have no stabilization at all for raw modes unless you use some sort of HW solution.
  • The Fan - A fan is fully expected on a cinema camera along with the supporting crew needed to keep dirt, sand, and dust out of it, but due to the 8K sensor a fan was needed to overcome the R5 fiasco. How well that is going to work over time and how quiet that stays remains to be seen. Without that 8K sensor a fan would not be needed.
  • Battery Life - One of the videos I saw said you only get 30min of recording time when using the internal battery, without 8K that would be a lot longer. So now for internal power just to make it through a day you are looking at 8-10 batteries at $80USD each.

My list goes on and on, but at the end of the day that 8K came with a lot of compromises for a resolution that no one was really asking for. Is it useable now that it is here....of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they really dropped the ball on the things that are important to many users just to offer it.

 

3 hours ago, Emanuel said:

No, you're not alone ; )

I don't doubt @herein2020 see the glass half empty for his needs : )

Once they've decided it in a different way :- )

The point is now to find if despite the lack of IBIS, hight cost of f/2.8 native zooms, hybrid switching delay, we can take advantage from 8K/50p RAW on their superior AF and decent stabilization for shaky handheld usage anyway.

 

🙂 You are definitely right, actually I think it is more than half empty in so many ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
3 hours ago, Django said:

The crop and grading possibilities from actual RAW 8K footage is on a complete other level!

Crop for a small sensor look.

Digital zoom for that YouTube look.

What about the cinema look?

8K for cinema falls flat.

3 hours ago, Django said:

Netflix is where it's moving tech wise and their requirements are +4K with most popular shows/films shot on RED (Monstro/Helium/Weapon) 8K, Venice 6K & Alexa 65.

Only when they are the producer.

Passing was on Netflix and on the Oscar short list.

It's 1.7K

3 hours ago, Django said:

Hollywood cinema has much lower requirements as the majority of theatres still use 2K projection hence Alexa's long withstanding popularity.

Hmm that's not why the Alexa is popular

And Hollywood cinema has the highest camera requirements in the entire industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
28 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

We all know the benefits of 8K on a 4K timeline, they are the same benefits that you get from putting 4K on a 1080P timeline

I see what you mean but there's not the same perceptual benefits.

First of course not all 1080p is created equally in-camera, a lot of it was mush.

4K was a big leap for us and our mirrorless cameras because in most cases it's a full pixel readout without binning (although not always).

So we got the advantages of a full pixel readout AND double the number of pixels horizontally and vertically.

With 4K to 8K it's a story of diminishing returns and getting your eyeballs even closer to the screen and making the screen even bigger.

So what are the available common formats for viewing 8K movies today?

Well, at 65 inch in the home on a TV you have to move the sofa right up next to the TV to notice a difference in resolution, and none of that extra resolution will serve the story or even the experience all that much.

Normal viewing distances in a lounge room with a very expensive and very large 8K TV makes the extra resolution 8K almost unnoticeable compared to 4K. In the cinema with the even longer viewing distances, it's even less.

On a PC monitor the difference is more noticeable.

But that's not really where I want people to watch movies!

They get a better experience in a cinema, with surround sound.

Rather than sat at a desk.

You know what I mean?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Django said:

Netflix is where it's moving tech wise and their requirements are +4K with most popular shows/films shot on RED (Monstro/Helium/Weapon) 8K, Venice 6K & Alexa 65.

I would be curious to see data on this.  Did you link to something previously?

I keep hearing people say that Netflix has these amazing requirements, but then I keep hearing about shows they've purchased after they were made that didn't meet the criteria but were purchased anyway, and then I hear that much/most? of what is on Netflix is purchased after the fact, rather than made for Netflix in the first place.

I think it's easy to get a misleading view of what is actually on Netflix because it's always promoting its own content and the higher budget shows they've bought.  I find that if you search for random words then you find entire universes of content that you'd never know was there.  Often they reveal swathes of content that wasn't made specifically for them, and is actually very low budget.

2 hours ago, Django said:

Hollywood cinema has much lower requirements as the majority of theatres still use 2K projection hence Alexa's long withstanding popularity.

Actually, the driver for increased resolution cinema cameras is coming from the VFX department that is involved in more and more productions these days.  It's a continuing debate that has been around since cameras started going above 2K.

This video shows the dynamic, which is still relevant today, but note that this video was from 2014! 

 

2 hours ago, Django said:

Zoom/Crop/Panning will have real-use benefits on commercial projects (real-estate, sports, product, interviews etc).

It's really the same kinda benefits 4K gave us in early 201x vs FHD. 

At first people we're complaining about the exact same things (too much skin tone detail, too big file sizes etc). Now look it's the norm. Same in photography with the MP race. I'm not super pro high-res either by the way but there are definitely some pros..

You're right that it's horses-for-courses.  I think the unfortunate thing is that spec-obsessed videographers fail to understand the aesthetic catastrophe that has occurred during the last decade of camera development.  This is now partially offset by the proliferation of RAW, but that comes with "hidden" costs.

I put "hidden" in quotations, because the costs are staggering and completely obvious, it's just that proponents of specifications fail to see them, and do so not only willingly, but deliberately.

The cost is literally 10's of thousands of dollars.

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

No one on this forum is shooting Oscar level cinema of any kind

This is true but is perhaps the most useless and misleading statement, because it misses an entire section of film-makers.

In a debate over specs there are often two camps - the "specs are good, give me more" camp, and the "we don't need more, we need better" camp.  The former is normally commercial videographers who only care about selling modern-looking images to uneducated clients.  The latter is people who are chasing the aesthetic of cinema, part of which is a softness of image that is life-like and human, rather than artificially clean and modern.

The premise that your statement makes is that the only people in the second group who are winning awards are allowed to express an opinion.  This is simply untrue.

There are a number of people on these forums, and I count myself as one of them, who are interested in an aesthetic other than "clean/modern".  An interest in vintage lenses is a sign of this desire, an interest in older cameras is a sign of this desire, there are others too.

There are multiple FB groups full of people who make fun of the borderline worship of the Sigma 18-35 lens, BM P4K and P6K cameras, and the whole "it's good because <insert specification here" argument.

The sad thing, and I think the thing that causes so much conflict, is that the specification-driven clean/modern aesthetic videographer folks don't understand they're only one audience in a sea of other people with deeply different needs, and so tend to shut down others as if anything other than their-style of film-making isn't a valid style of film-making (unless you're winning an Oscar....)

10 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

We all know the benefits of 8K on a 4K timeline, they are the same benefits that you get from putting 4K on a 1080P timeline, my only point is that they made so many sacrifices just to wear that 8K badge that ended up removing much more useful features that many more people would actually find useful.

I couldn't care less if Canon went with 8K and it wouldn't bother me one bit if the R5C offered up to 8K resolution, but the sacrifices to me for that resolution really weren't worth it in my opinion.

  • Power - What other camera do you know that's marketed as a hybrid mirrorless camera that needs a laptop power supply just to use with external power? 
  • IBIS - I know this has been beaten to death, but everything about a hybrid mirrorless screams run and gun and handheld, not dollys, gimbals, sliders, etc. Sure, wide angle lenses have problems with IBIS but IBIS is practically a necessity for professional looking handheld footage and with wide angle lenses that's when it makes sense to use a gimbal or other stabilizer. Let's not forget that the RAW modes don't even support digital stabilization so you have no stabilization at all for raw modes unless you use some sort of HW solution.
  • The Fan - A fan is fully expected on a cinema camera along with the supporting crew needed to keep dirt, sand, and dust out of it, but due to the 8K sensor a fan was needed to overcome the R5 fiasco. How well that is going to work over time and how quiet that stays remains to be seen. Without that 8K sensor a fan would not be needed.
  • Battery Life - One of the videos I saw said you only get 30min of recording time when using the internal battery, without 8K that would be a lot longer. So now for internal power just to make it through a day you are looking at 8-10 batteries at $80USD each.

My list goes on and on, but at the end of the day that 8K came with a lot of compromises for a resolution that no one was really asking for. Is it useable now that it is here....of course, but it doesn't change the fact that they really dropped the ball on the things that are important to many users just to offer it.

Completely agree.

In fact, the manufacturers not only managed to convince us that more resolution is better, they managed to convince us that spectacular images are not expected.

In the years after the OG BMPCC and BMMCC were created, people loved the colour and took that level of image to be a new standard.  Now, a decade on, not only do the multi-thousand dollar cameras not meet that level of colour science, but the expectation of cameras to even have that level of colour is gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Normal viewing distances in a lounge room with a very expensive and very large 8K TV makes the extra resolution 8K almost unnoticeable compared to 4K. In the cinema with the even longer viewing distances, it's even less.

On a PC monitor the difference is more noticeable.

But that's not really where I want people to watch movies!

They get a better experience in a cinema, with surround sound.

Rather than sat at a desk.

You know what I mean?!

I think it's actually worse than this.

On the one hand we have people saying that 8K is more visible than 4K, when 4K isn't particularly visible over 2K even when the screen is cinema sized, and on the other hand, more and more people are watching videos on their portable devices, which have absolutely TINY screens with 4K or less resolution.

Soon we'll have people saying that 24K is absolutely mandatory and in the same sentence saying that everyone is watching videos on a postage stamp.  

The cognitive dissonance is palpable. (unlike the aesthetic of the image because the camera and lenses are all pristine, and therefore, soul-less!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I agree there is a huge gap in the market for a characterful vintage film image, which was everything that the Digital Bolex, original BMCC 2.5K and Magic Lantern RAW were.

The megapixel and dynamic range race makes me a bit cold.

I don't see what it is doing creatively for watching a film.

The crazy resolution is just distracting and emotionally clinical.

The dynamic range is at the expense of good colour science and leads to lazy lighting, lack of contrast and piss poor tonality.

Something needs to be done to recognise the appeal of a more low-fi cinematic image.

If film is going to die out it needs a direct replacement in artistic terms.

And that is not 8K RAW on an EOS R5C!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
6 minutes ago, kye said:

I think it's actually worse than this.

On the one hand we have people saying that 8K is more visible than 4K, when 4K isn't particularly visible over 2K even when the screen is cinema sized, and on the other hand, more and more people are watching videos on their portable devices, which have absolutely TINY screens with 4K or less resolution.

Soon we'll have people saying that 24K is absolutely mandatory and in the same sentence saying that everyone is watching videos on a postage stamp.  

The cognitive dissonance is palpable. (unlike the aesthetic of the image because the camera and lenses are all pristine, and therefore, soul-less!)

I think there's a reason the MacBook Retina display even at 16 inch doesn't go beyond 3K.

4K on a smartphone, don't get me started on that 🙂

However I don't think many filmmakers actually care how the masses watch movies, they're more interested in the artistic selection of lenses and the right tool to tell a story and capture a mood.

And this is where I think too much resolution, detail, sharpness, hardness and higher frame rates really work against the process of capturing the mood and doing justice to the story.

Unless you want unflinching levels of clinical realism.

So if I was going for classic or cinematic, I'd stay well away from 8K and probably not even use modern lenses either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I agree there is a huge gap in the market for a characterful vintage film image, which was everything that the Digital Bolex, original BMCC 2.5K and Magic Lantern RAW were.

The megapixel and dynamic range race makes me a bit cold.

I don't see what it is doing creatively for watching a film.

The crazy resolution is just distracting and emotionally clinical.

The dynamic range is at the expense of good colour science and leads to lazy lighting, lack of contrast and piss poor tonality.

Something needs to be done to recognise the appeal of a more low-fi cinematic image.

If film is going to die out it needs a direct replacement in artistic terms.

And that is not 8K RAW on an EOS R5C!

I agree, mostly.

I think that increased dynamic range is actually a good thing, as film clips really nicely and it takes more DR to emulate that in digital than it did in chemistry, but it seems to have come at the expense of colour science, rather than supporting it, as I think it has the potential to do.

IIRC, film is mostly linear in the middle sections, with large rolloffs at each end.

characteristiccurve.jpg?itok=GSzBLHqZ

A camera that took its 14 stops of DR and applied a contrast curve like this, and applied nice colour saturation and tonality, and output that as a 709-style 10-bit profile in-camera would be great.  Such a profile could apply the normal orange/teal colour separation and cool-shadows / warm-highlights that is the basis for almost all colour profiles.

This would give the camera a very usable SOOC file that would have more analog highlight and shadow rolloffs, potentially with some adjustment in-camera of the overall contrast and the black-levels perhaps.  Such a profile wouldn't clip anything, and would have the benefit that if you wanted to colour grade in post, there would be more bits in the middle levels where the skintones etc are.

A camera that took its 14 stops of DR, applied nice colour, and applied a completely perfect log curve and output that as a log-style 10-bit profile in-camera would also be great.  This would allow a completely neutral encoding that would enable the maximum flexibility of files in post for adjustments that severely push the image in terms of exposure and grading.

This would make the camera a very usable and flexible camera for grading in post.

These things are completely possible, just not done.  Mores the pity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we've just gotten spoiled with the latest batch of cameras.  I was planning on picking up the next Black Magic Pocket when it included 8K but going to add the R5C to go with my R5.  Had both the BMPC4K/6K and enjoyed them but the autofocus of the Canons won me over.  

Love the flexibility 8K gives me in post for stabilization, cropping & zooming.  Basically can leave the long lenses at home.  As far as the R5C missing IBIS, it is unfortunate, but what Cinema camera has it?  Plus I'm thinking the lens IS & EIS would still perform better than the IBIS from the latest Sony cameras.  Canon probably should have called it the C5 to hammer home that it's a cinema first camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kye said:

I would be curious to see data on this.  Did you link to something previously?

I keep hearing people say that Netflix has these amazing requirements, but then I keep hearing about shows they've purchased after they were made that didn't meet the criteria but were purchased anyway, and then I hear that much/most? of what is on Netflix is purchased after the fact, rather than made for Netflix in the first place.

I'm talking original content which is what the requirements are for. Netflix obviously licences film/shows from various sources/eras (and hence resolution) but that's just licensing, you'll notice a certain film/director/studio will appear/disappear on Netflix. For their original content, they have high resolution requirements that force push many DP's to drop the almighty Alexa in favour of RED/Sony/Alexa LF/65 etc. This is certainly because of their partnerships with TV manufacturers (that can only push higher res if there is higher res content) but also for future proofing they're content. One could argue about the politics of that, but I do believe its pushing things forward vs terrestrial TV that is still FHD or even cine 2K.

Anyways, here is the link I posted previously:

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-netflix-original-films-series/

It's from 2019 but obviously applies itself even more today (ex: Squid Game captured in 8K Redcode Raw on Monstro)

2 hours ago, kye said:

Actually, the driver for increased resolution cinema cameras is coming from the VFX department that is involved in more and more productions these days.  It's a continuing debate that has been around since cameras started going above 2K.

This video shows the dynamic, which is still relevant today, but note that this video was from 2014! 

Yes, I remember that vid you posted elsewhere and the same polarising thoughts back then can certainly be transposed to todays 4K vs 6K/8K debate. That is a Hollywood perspective though. I can tell you my VFX unit are crying when I try and push them 6K/8K.  Simply because we're on certain budgets/deadlines that can't always afford the rendering times of such high resolutions. Other VFX units/projects will embrace it. There is no general consensus other than project specific requirements on a pro level.

2 hours ago, kye said:

You're right that it's horses-for-courses.  I think the unfortunate thing is that spec-obsessed videographers fail to understand the aesthetic catastrophe that has occurred during the last decade of camera development.  This is now partially offset by the proliferation of RAW, but that comes with "hidden" costs.

What is this so-called aesthetic catastrophe exactly? 10-bit log & RAW is for sure a great evolution for the aesthetic conscious minded videographer. To quote Andrew I don't miss compressed 8-bit 1080p Rec709 line-skipped days. 

Photographers have had +12-bit RAW forever even in entry-level cameras. It took forever to get there in affordable hybrids.

Same with AF & resolution. Stabilisation? Apparently some people now can't live without IBIS. 

I understand them too. I love IBIS. Then again no cine cam has IBIS.

 It's always give or take but one can't really hate on tech development..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Django said:

Right but don't take as a resolution example that re-graded screenshot from a 4K graded compressed YT image.

The crop and grading possibilities from actual RAW 8K footage is on a complete other level!

(...)

Again those are just screenshots from a 4K YT video.. wasn't really trying to make an argument for 8K there, just a regrade for fun..

LOL You answered to your own previous first lines. Of course, that completely unscientific joke of mine is anything more than that... Now let's try to go there with less acquisition under the same circumstances/variables then ; ) Roughly gives an idea.

 

Andrew is right anyway, as far as the cinematic properties goes. 100% accurate. There are natural human limits to be reached too. Sweet spots as well. For sure : )

From then on, 'better' is wider and its peaks speak higher, a full step critically ahead and a way much relevant than 'more'. No doubts.

Take a look on 14-bit or 12-bit RAW, even lower res, just to have the whole picture how this makes a valid point.

But, I and you, alias Django user here, just understand one doesn't exclude the other.

 

That said, to follow all that, as @cameraeye @DWX have also pointed out the post route, we have yet many other applications for. With a plain hand of implications over the production process itself. Daily consequences business-wise on the fact our craft is affected or can proceed.

When I mention large format printing is not for nothing. I've already faced a few situations where my wishful thinking fits a hybrid tool offering us 50 fps acquisition at least, and the highest resolution at the same time going along the same shot -- for many different use cases later. This capture device comes closer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Django said:

What is this so-called aesthetic catastrophe exactly? 10-bit log & RAW is for sure a great evolution for the aesthetic conscious minded videographer. To quote Andrew I don't miss compressed 8-bit 1080p Rec709 line-skipped days. 

The catastrophe isn't getting RAW, it's forgetting how good cameras used to look.

A decade on, and cameras have 16x as many pixels, but worse colour science.  Like @Andrew Reid said "Nothing unique at all about the images, could have been shot on just about anything else.".

This is why I said that "the expectation of cameras to even have that level of colour is gone".  You look at the images from that camera and think "looks great - yay Canon colour science" but many others think "blah..  another generic look".

ARRI created the 65 and improved their colour science from the original Alexa models.  Canon hasn't even closed the gap between them and the original Alexa.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...