Thread: Canon C500 Mark II

Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 13 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 128
  1. #51  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Takor Arrey View Post
    How many people are actually shooting and using 6K footage.
    Lots since 2012. Which is sort of why all of what you are seeing is happening, you'll be able to count the amount of 6K cameras on 2 hands soon. It's a very flexible resolution whether you are finishing for 4K or 2K. In fact, many of the productions even using 8K cameras targeting a 4K finsh are focused on a 6K-7K extraction of the full 8K resolution frame for those not just going for a full 8K to 4K downsample.

    Modern productions have a lot of different workflows, but a good deal of them have embraced resolution as part of the medium. Especially those productions adhering to more of a film-minded workflow. Sort of a natural adaptation as it is/was more or less how people tapped into film as well with various framing guides and extractions. Before 3-perf and 2-perf Super 35mm even happened, a good deal of 4-perf Super 35mm productions were extracting 1.85:1 or whatever they needed from the full 4:3 frame. We've been seeing now for years how filmmakers choose to explore higher resolution acquisition towards their creative and technical desires.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #52  
    Senior Member Blair S. Paulsen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    5,199
    It's mostly about the downsampling benefits when using Bayer CMOS sensor tech. 6K capture, 4K post.

    Cheers - #19
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #53  
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Toronto, ON Canada
    Posts
    66
    Phil, from your response I take it that film makers really appreciate the 4/6/8Ks capture because of the flexibility in post. But the corporate world does not care as much about resolution compared to frame rates, RAW data management,
    etc. In fact, most small businesses are dragging their heels due to higher production costs.

    It is only normal that a videographer includes thier costs when billing a client. But at the same time why should a client choose a canon C500 MKII over Sony FS7 MK II? The very same reason that Sony F5 doesn't even get a mention at all.
    Last edited by Takor Arrey; 09-07-2019 at 12:46 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #54  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Takor Arrey View Post
    Bwhy should a client choose a canon C500 MKII over Sony FS7 MK II? The very same reason that Sony F5 doesn't even get a mention at all.
    Admittedly I do not shoot corporate work, but I do have the advantage of communicating with a broad variety of filmmakers, videographers, and image makers across the world. I actually really enjoy seeing and hearing about their work and what hurdles they encounter.

    From my observations for corporate, mainly talking head work, it comes down to workflow and budget. I know some who sort of just need the speed of pushing out a 2K or 4K delivery from the time of shooting to sometimes finishing the project in the same day of the shoot even. I also know a staff videographer for a company in San Diego that switched over to Dragon-X as they were looking to increase the quality of their internal videos with the added benefit that they're punching in on the footage to get sort of a CU and MS from the same material despite only finishing for 1080p/2K. I also see a lot of very low budget corporate work getting made where it's more of a whatever camera can even be used for that sort of job.

    In the world I work in, the client rarely influences the cameras I use. When I occasionally get tapped for a project to shoot VFX elements, plates, or special unit; sometimes if the whole show is something like ARRI or even film, I'll be put into a position where I need to use a specific system. Often I do get that work and they'll want the 8K for the VFX from Monstro too as that's part of the systems strengths. I don't exactly have a common everyday structure to my projects. I work on a few dozen a year typically and it always seems to be something different.

    To the point of the question. My real opinion is your client shouldn't be responsible for choosing the camera and normally they aren't. Typically you'll be asked if you can deliver 4K, 30p, or whatever and it's usually up to the filmmaker or videographer to choose whatever system is appropriate for that job and/or their typical needs or the type of work they normally produce. Commonly though, yes extra resolution specifically for talking head stuff is used to punch in to get a variety of shot types with one or two cameras while maintaining good visual quality for a targeted delivery resolution. For a 6K frame you can get 2 maybe 3 types of framing concepts from one single take if targeting a 2K delivery for instance.

    On jobs I bid, if I'm even asked, I explain to the client why I'm choosing a camera system. You gain a lot trust eventually and most of the time people are more interested in my work than anything I'm actually filming with, which gets me to the point as to why I choose the cameras I want to work with. But sometimes I'm asked to provide sample test footage to run through QC and to provide a sanity check on a production pipeline. These days those tests are usually because we're doing sort of bleeding edge 8K or 8K+ work, occasionally for something going to a 4K delivery.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #55  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    328
    Corporate clients will specify camera systems in some cases, especially if there is an in house creative director. They want to maintain consistency across their process. If their editors are used to working with MXF at a price point they won't want to change that. This is one of the reasons RED doesn't have a foothold in this large market segment. The belief is the RED workflow is too complicated and costly, this may not be the case, but this thought is entrenched in this market. Corporate production is a slow moving behemoth, relies on the dependable, slow to adapt. But also at this point all the pro cameras deliver the same image to the untrained eye, which is good enough for most.

    Therefore the C500 MK2 will continue Canon's dominance in this field especially at the original C300 price point, it's a no brainer if you are in this market. Plus FF, ND, etc... that IBIS looks interesting too. It also comes with a $600 Express card.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #56  
    Senior Member DJ Meyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Ash Worth View Post
    Corporate clients will specify camera systems in some cases, especially if there is an in house creative director. They want to maintain consistency across their process. If their editors are used to working with MXF at a price point they won't want to change that. This is one of the reasons RED doesn't have a foothold in this large market segment. The belief is the RED workflow is too complicated and costly, this may not be the case, but this thought is entrenched in this market. Corporate production is a slow moving behemoth, relies on the dependable, slow to adapt. But also at this point all the pro cameras deliver the same image to the untrained eye, which is good enough for most.

    Therefore the C500 MK2 will continue Canon's dominance in this field especially at the original C300 price point, it's a no brainer if you are in this market. Plus FF, ND, etc... that IBIS looks interesting too. It also comes with a $600 Express card.

    I shoot almost exclusively high end corporate. Vast majority is on Red with occasional Arri and Canon. Most days shooting 1-3 Monstros in 8K HD.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #57  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    328
    High end corporate. I'm talking about the bread and butter work, that part of the market where most work is done. I've rarely seen a RED camera.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #58  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    767
    Quote Originally Posted by John David Pope View Post
    By "doco" do you guys mean unscripted work and not literally work on documentaries? Because these mid-range cameras such as the C300 and Fs7 do all sorts of work. They do the 95% of video production that RED cameras and ARRI cameras are not used for. They are the work-horses of the industry and not a specialty camera. RED and ARRI are more specialty or "niche" cameras than the Canon and Sony cameras.
    It's compelling for all sorts of work totally. But in particular in terms of a use case if you were deciding on an A-Cam for an upcoming documentary series or feature and were considering what is out there right now and what is announced and coming down the pike - this would be a pretty compelling option to have on your radar given its benefits.

    All sorts of cameras are used for every kind of production - when I say compelling I mean that it would compel someone to consider moving systems or plan a work flow around it rather than just make a decision based on availability, familiarity and price/performance.

    In comparison to RED cameras it might be the case that this becomes a lot more compelling in some arenas - although for documentary wildlife I'd think RED's flexibility with higher end frame rate options are still a bit of a killer feature for many.

    I don't mean to damn with faint praise - every camera at every budget level should be investigated to see if it offers particular advantages to a production. But in the feature / high end VOD documentary sphere I think this camera will likely have people rushing to put it through its paces when it hits the actual wild, general EFP productions might consider the upgrade if its on their road map and narrative productions will check it out but not necessarily find it quite as compelling as sticking to rental packages they are already confirtable with.

    It suggests itself as a fantastic camera - period - but thinking of the productions I deal with (mostly from a post supervision and production workflow approach - which is all that can be considered until actual pictures are seen) doco productions are likely to feel incredibly well catered to at first glance in particular - hence the comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #59  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,810
    Our first corporate client demanded 6k-bayer minimum for the A-Cam, the new clients coming from that work, demanded the same A-Cam (Helium at 7k).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #60  
    Senior Member Sabyasachi Patra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    New Delhi, Bangalore, India
    Posts
    550
    I am in the documentary, wildlife, corporate space. When there is a global campaign of some corporate, they demand a specific look. Have to shoot mostly in clog and send .mxf files for centralised editing. People often prefer Canon for the colours and once the look is finalised, there is hardly any major grading. With the canon raw light it is now much better to edit files if someone has time. Else the XFAVC files will be fine for a lot of corporates.

    At the moment top end wildlife programs use red for cropping the same shot and using multiple angles to direct the attention as well as more importantly fill the time. The C500 Mark II will be very useful.

    It appears that they simply cannibalised the C700 by the C500 Mark II. So features can use it as an A camera. Infact can get several of those for multiple angles. C500 Mark II is firmly in my radar. My only complaint is that I will have to buy a bunch of CFExpress cards as I have a bunch of CFast 2.0 cards and will have to roam around with more/bigger harddisks and raids for 6K acquisition. Like all cameras, I will get one from Canon to review and then buy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts