Leaderboard

3 isn't a great range scale for a rumour is it? That only gets you from almost certainly true to could be true to no way is that true. Or from Elvis is dead to Elvis is alive to Elvis is alive and spearheading an alien invasion of 9 foot cyborgs in rhinestone clad jumpsuits. I might start a rumours site with a Spinal Tap scale where the rumours go up to 11.

4K in a Canon Cinema camera you say. How does $ 8 000 sound? I'll bet they will continue to sell c100 mkii and c300 mkii at the same price as now and place this new model right in the middle.

????

That "high-end" pros almost never use autofocus is not condescending -- it's a simple fact. Focus is often an important dimension of photographic artistry, and relinquishing decisions about such artistic expression to a machine is not something that a professional nor a craftsman would generally do. How would one use autofocus to execute the racks shown in this shot. Furthermore, there are aesthetic and practical reasons for using only manual cinema lenses. One might choose Master Prime or Crystal Express lenses for their performance or look, and if one is shooting on a cinema camera with a PL mount, lack of autofocus is moot. Using an autofocus lens both manually and automatically can be problematic, as manually racking focus requires solid marks that don't move (as is sometimes not the case with "focus-by-wire" AF lenses), so it is usually best to just stick with manual lenses. Even if one is using a camera that can take both autofocus lenses and manual cinema lenses, switching between AF lenses and cinema lenses can cause visual continuity problems. It's doubtful that an algorithm could have conceived of nor executed my above linked example. Here is a scene from a more recent production that is chock full of "fancy creative" and expressive focus racks, with virtually no focus tracking: Also, note the shot of the musicians that is purposefully thrown out of focus to convey the POV of the delirious character. By default, shooting with autofocus negates artistically deft, expressive racks such as these.

I think you forgot a few "smalls" ? But yes I completely agree with your statement. I don't mean to pat myself on the back here, but without shooting Raw on the 5D3, I never would have gotten an image close to what I've been getting. And when you're shooting completely guerilla style as a one man band... every little bit of IQ helps. For instance, I know this isn't the best image in the world, but I would never get this level of skin texture with an h.264 codec... Even zoomed in, the actor's skin looks better than anything I've ever captured. So for someone like me, a shooter and colorist with a minimal amount of skills, and productions like mine, with a minimal amount of self-funding, to be able to do a minimal amount, or a simple but extensive amount of LUTS and still get an image that doesn't break proves just how effective Raw is for no budget productions. IMO. YMMV.

slightly less blue in the highlights.

Made with several grading layer in Assimilate Scratch, trying to match accurate colors and preserve as much as possible midtones and mild roll-of highlights. V-log indeed has pretty nice DR scope.

I have to admit that at first I was a bit disappointed that it has no constant f2.8 aperture. But now on a second sight, I think this could be really a lens for me - weather sealing, smaller and lighter than the olympus 7-14, leica touch (hopefully) and a filter thread. Bonus: longer end without sacrificing too much on the shorter end. If the manual focusing is the same as with other newer PL lenses like the 15 f1.7 then what is not to love about this lens?

If true, probably is, this is great news for us. Pushes the industry to move on, not sit on their laurels like they say. Also will be lots of cheap used C100 mkII's for us to buy, Cool!

AF is a tool, choose to use it or not, but reading the condescending "pros never use AF" stuff gets old. I never understand the elitist attitude some have when people do things in a different way than what's been traditionally done. Some don't use AF because until recently it was complete shit or just not an option. Everyone can conjure up scenarios to show how MF can be superior, but then you're looking at things in a vacuum. Not everyone is shooting narrative on set, or shooting weddings and so on - though I know a few wedding shooters and they use AF a lot. I don't think most use it 100% exclusively. There are plenty of situations where AF is a big help, namely run and gun or small cameras on a gimbal. Watch the doc Cartel Land, most of it was shot with a C100/17-55 and it takes the term 'run-and-gun' to another level. I'm pretty sure Canon's C100/300's are marketed at professionals and have been very successful, and they're pushing DPAF pretty hard. Movie sets with dedicated focus pullers and cinema lenses with no AF are an incorrect parallel since there's no option to use AF and many of the cameras have no AF capabilities. That's like mocking a Prius for not being a good sailboat. But with small hybrid cameras and fly by wire lenses it can be very effective since MF is being handled by a computer while you spin the focus ring - so trying to repeat focus moves will not result in the same amount of ring movement and distance scales are an approximation. Also focus peaking is not always 100% sharp, this can easily be seen when zooming to check focus - its close, but many times its not there. AF is getting better all the time and its moving at a pretty fast pace since that's an area that's driving competition. DPAF is special, tap the screen and it follows your subject. Sony's face tracking is pretty incredible - once they get "center lock" focus dialed on the video side you'll be able to track a single person or object regardless of what else enters the frame. It works great on the stills side. When I'm traveling and I shoot hundreds of stills a day along with a lot of video, most of the video I shoot is a clip after grabbing a few stills. AF makes life a lot easier. When shooting 2-cam sit-down interviews, everything is done manually. When shooting events (I don't shoot weddings - mostly corporate parties, fundraisers) I use AF a lot because it allows me to work faster, I don't think that makes me or anyone else less skilled, its just what works for me. I'm working on funding for two docs over the next year and they'll likely be shot with either Fuji XT2's or a combo of the A7rII and A7sII - and I'll be using AF and MF together. In the end its another tool to help get the job done, I'm glad I have the option. YMMV.

Actually it's a Canon 5D2 upgrade program. Hence the 200 moniker. Sensor unlocked to shoot in 16K resolution up 9000 fps. Only thing is you have to send the camera into the factory as they take a hammer to it and rebuild it with super glue. Oh yeah, plus they need to stencil on the two 0s, so you know it's a 200. What do you mean I'm full of shit? I heard it from a Canon rep.

When learning still photography, I spent a lot of time (and money) buying LED lights to replace strobes (best bang-for-buck strobes I found were the Einstein E640s, fantastic light output and quality (one strobe can easily overpower the sun in broad daylight at the beach). However they don't fire 100% of the time (recommend perhaps Profoto as a step up or if doing full-time stills and traveling, etc.)). Even with gels and a light meter I couldn't get the LEDs which weren't great from the factory to produce nice skintones. Spending a lot more on Dracast LEDs, which are built like tanks, got closer, but they still didn't look great for skintones (magenta bias). The lower cost Aputure LSx series LED panels finally produced great skintones, as did the spot source LED Fiilex (fantastic skintones though not a great bang-for-buck and relatively low light output per dollar, plus the fan can be audible in recordings (it's pretty quiet, but not silent)). We talk a lot about how Canon has too much red, and red objects don't look right, etc. The reason Canon does this, is to make sure skintones look good. However for certain lights and conditions Canon's red bias can look no so good and must be fixed in post. To get a better idea of what camera and light makers have to deal with: https://www.provideocoalition.com/doestlcireallywork/ . CRI and even TLCI aren't great predictors of light quality. I can say I agree- only testing the lights has shown whether they work well for skintones/color accuracy. I recently replaced LED bulbs in my studio office to help make shooting video from my desk look better. The new Hypericon LED bulbs rated at CRI 95 were purchased to improve the light/color over these Crees which IIRC were 80-85 CRI. To the light meter, both bulbs have a magenta bias, but to the eye (and cameras) the bias is green. The CRI 95 Hypericons looked no better on camera than the older ~80-85 CRI Crees. At least they use 2W less power, 16W vs 18W. What's the deal with red and skintones? http://www.leapfroglighting.com/why-the-led-r9-value-isnt-important/ (read the article- they are actually saying the LED R9 (red) is the most important for skintones). If you are having trouble getting great skintones indoors, take a closer look at your lights, especially if using LED or fluorescent lights (my first lights used fluorescent bulbs designed for photography/film and they still had a green bias: skintones didn't look that great). If on an ultra low budget, tungsten with china balls is still perhaps the best bang-for-buck (provided all the lights in scene are tungsten).

..or maybe this one http://www.eoshd.com/2014/03/canon-4k-refresh-c200-c400-coming-nab/ !!! a 3 years full circle!

I disagree. If you want to go wild in post, RAW is the only way to get access to good quality footage for small indie productions (5DmarkIII, bmpcc. With Mercer in mind maybe we should talk about small small indie productions ;)). If you shoot with a pro camera you already have access to decent not completely fucked up footage by poor debayering and/or compression and you can still go wild in post without tearing the footage apart.

Ok. I have bmpcc, gh2 and Sony rx10ii. But after i saw files from gh5 i decide to sell all of my cameras. RX10ii - really good camera, but i can`t get good colors and it makes me crazy. bmpcc- IQ is superb but no HFR, bad battery life and monitor. No stab GH2 - is my old friend. But too old for now GH5 is my next camera i think

Facebook post... Nikon Speedbooster .71x -> Nippon Kogaku h auto 50mm f2 -> Kowa 8z -> CineD 4k 4:3 50p 8bit

With some exceptions, I never considered zooming while shooting to be a good practice. I got into a lengthy discussion with someone on another forum who defended the practice. It's rarely used today in cinema. If you looked at old TV shows and movies, it was used far more frequently back then.

Haha. I love Red Letter Media.

Jcs, have you tried daylight http://www.yujiintl.com/high-cri-led-lighting (CRI 98, not that it matters) ? They match sunlight entering my room very well and under this light colours in prints match what I see on a calibrated Eizo screen too. I believe they sell led strips which would be perfect for creating video panels https://store.yujiintl.com/products/vtc-series-high-cri-led-2835-ribbon-120-led-m-unit-5m-reel-1

Its definitely there when I click it.... Just to double check, I've refreshed the link on Mega So try this one, should be 79.6mb https://mega.nz/#!0zRB1QIJ!uycAhx4pUJ_E_sT37FmA40xanloyd0tNJa0OjVdcDsg

On thing I've found with the X-T2 Jon is setting the custom AFC mode to Suddenly Appearing Subject is very, very good at acquiring and releasing focus when you step in and out of the frame. And as if to be contrary to my own mantra of automatically just using AF when I'm doing my real job, because of the absence of any wide aperture long primes from Fuji I shot yesterday's one all manual focus with a Nikon 300 f2.8 on the XT-2. The quality of the EVF on the XT-2 and their focus peaking made it a breeze to be honest and thats a hybrid solution I'm probably going to try out on tonight's job which will be far more challenging light and subject tracking wise. It's a pity they don't offer that EVF as a standalone product to be honest

I can send you ae project with gh5 matching 5d3 from this video

I agree. You know, I am an amateur. It's my privilege to use anything I want the way I want o use it. I can try to re-invent everything, like he poineers of film. And I can also use anything that makes certain things easier. The word privilege reminded me of this unboxing video and how happy I can be not having to be pro: On the other hand, I am guilty of being skeptic of new technology too (but AF is hardly a new technology. If I remember correctly, I hardly used MF on my old VX2000, an SD-camcorder, and for weddings also). I could dig out old threads in which I express my contempt of the 4k hype. Like, Avatar had been shot at 1920p, why does everybody now consider simple HD to be inferior? But that's a good point. UHD makes only sense with perfectly accurate focus. Putting a wide lens on a gimbal with hyperfocal distance just doesn't cut it. Even more so since I personally don't like wide angle shots (exceptions prove the rule). And: it's not true that AF takes away your creative choices. To make it work the way you intended, you have to program it first. It can be used as an electric focus puller.

I think what Liam means is that the "Shooting" subforum is for people who have a creative work to show, not a place for gear. The subheading for the Shooting subforum is "Screening room and the creative side of filmmaking - share your ideas / stories".

I was until I heard the rolling shutter was really bad. Kind of a bummer. I predict the "C200" will compete with the FS5, so 1080p/10 bit, 4k/8 bit. Of course the Canon will look miles ahead of the FS5 because of the color...

Even if no one is really enthusiastic about Canon Log on the 5D Mark IV (I'm not sure why, the crop factor is only 1.08 compared with an Alexa, and that's not all that much) it signals the recognition by Canon that they need to push 4k downmarket and improve on specs if they want to compete. This could be a pretty great deal, exactly what FS5 owners wanted but didn't get. :/ The silly part, of course, is that most high end productions are still 1080p/2k and only the very highest and the low end are 4k. 4k almost makes more sense on point and shoot than it does on the C300 Mk II, which sold well possibly specifically because it was so conservatively spec'd. Arri doesn't give you true 4k unless you're shooting 65mm!

$80 per lens. A small price to pay to have them professionally geared, they come back cleaned in sealed wrapping. Each lens has the focus rings width match the set. Worth it to be assured quality in my opinion.

don't you love it when you can say "told ya so"?! Cheers Dave, hope this is going to be my next camera. I hate to be an early adaptor, but I am waiting for a C100markII replacement for more than a year now. I just can't wait anymore!

http://www.canonrumors.com/the-next-camera-body-from-canon-will-be-cr3/ Told ya so

Agree with Fritz. Also, in terms of usable zoom the 12-60 is far more versatile. I used the 12-35 for a few years and the limit on it's use was the zoom range. In terms of the extra stop or so at 35mm, it makes no difference on the GH5 as it is already a couple of stops better than the GH4 I was using. In terms of low light shooting, neither lens is ideal. F2.8 is just as insufficient when pushing things as F4 is so you go to the 25mm 1.4 at that point regardless of what zoom you have. For the ultimate daylight walk around zoom it's probably still the 14-140 for the biggest range on one lens. Not sure how the stabilisation compares but you can see the daylight IQ lacks nothing

It is easier to buy an expensive car, than run the costs of it. Servicing, fuel, insurance, taxes, etc That applies to everything, in my opinion (and experience) everything in the workflow is important. Especially with tripods, you can't cheat, there are no very cheap Chinese ones, and you can't buy smaller if you don't want to harm your usability, I learned that the hard way (it is always hard!) a dozen years ago.

You and I both just brought it up...it's the whole reason in my mind for having a zoom...I never zoom while shooting....that would be a dolly or a slider for me....but the freedom of that lens on your camera...

Yeah you are Not going to get by using a 75mm Bowl. 100mm or More! 75 is sort of a stretch for my AF100 rigged with a B4 lens on it. I just bought a Manfrotto 100mm Bowl for it a few days ago. Hell, it's Only Money!

What does something like that set you back, though? I'm guessing... quite a bit ('Voigtländers back' -> you had to send 'em over?? 'Duclos' (expertise = $$$). I imagine something like Alan showed would work as well? Or get custom 3D scanned/printed fittings? There's a 3D store right around my corner, bet they're popping up everywhere these days, if you don't already have some set-up at home. Awesome. I love how filters can transform a lens! Perhaps a seriously undervalued asset by many shooters. Though, you always seem to nail that urban earthy vibe, so can't give these filters too much credit.

Yes. I'm so tired seeing same extreme color schemes in so many films these days. I don't get why whole scenes should be colored in one single color, I don't get why every film needs to rely so heavily on the orange/teal coloring. I think there must be some rule that you are not allowed to release your film to cinemas unless enough orange/teal can be detected...

I opted for the 12-60 Panny/Leica...I already own the PL 25 F1.4, Panny 20mm F1.7 and the 14-140 F4.0. I think it depends on your needs really....to me Leica glass was important...that the lens is F2.8 at 12mm and for interiors I would be on the wide end...I care less about the fact that it gets slower through the zoom...the extra 50mm of reach was also important to me, as I would need that outside, where for my purposes the F4.0 was outweighed by the longer reach of the 60...I would suggest, as they are both in and around the $1000 mark, that if possible you try them out...both for build quality and image Edit...The only M4/3 lens I actually bought....not as part of a camera package before the 12-60 P/L was the P/L 25 and the lens blew me away...then I added the 12-60....and I can now see myself selling my two Panny lenses and adding the P/L 42 prime and the 8-18 when it's released...there is a distinct difference between the Leicas and the Pannys....so where you go with your set should probably factor into this for you too

No, but if you own the VSCO film 04 pack you can try to convert the Provia 400x for Canon profile to a lut. Then add it after my GH5 to ML lut, add curves and saturation and you should get a very similar look. You can convert ACR or Lightroom presets to luts by using the awesome IWLTBAP lut generator. Open a HALD in ACR or LR, apply a preset. Convert to PNG and bring in to IWLTBAP.

I agree with almost all of your points about the trailer, Andrew. I'd go one step further past the reservations on Gosling and say the whole cast feels sterile and hip. Robin Wright, Jared Leto as the bad guy, the hot wife from War Dogs. Will these people be in something of lasting value? I'm not sure, maybe. The script is at least supposed to be great. My one disagreement is the wish for Deakin's to have shot on anamorphic. Since the original film came out, this format has become highly fetishized to the point that it now calls attention to itself. No one was counting cool flares in '84, but they are now. I appreciate that Deakins decided to put the emphasis on what's in frame, as opposed to getting precious with how it's rendered. That said, Chnristina Ava makes a great point about naturalism and the grade here being way too much.

Only the Panny/Leica 1.4...when you handle the lens it feels like a toy...but the image is all Leica...and at 1.4 the lens is tick sharp and the DOF unforgivingly shallow...as I never use AF, the fly by wire MF took a bit of getting use to, but the lens has performed flawlessly in over 5 years of owning it. @Rich Merritt...I recently bought the 12-60 Panny/Leica 2.8 and although I don't have the GH5 that I bought it for yet, I am already very impressed with this lens. It will definitely earn it's keep! I got both the 20mm 1.7 and the 1st generation 14-140 4.0 on cameras I purchased and although slow, the 14-140 is a good outdoor video lens and the 20 is fast and sharp for indoor use...especially needed if you shoot Vlog as raising ISO in Vlog seems to get noisy quickly...

Everything is a workaround and a compromise with AF at the moment trying to resolve the two basic truths which is that the camera is far smarter and faster than I am at nailing focus but I'm far smarter and faster than it is at picking what it should be focusing on. Its currently like my other half and her shoe shopping. I can get us to the shop far quicker and more efficiently than she can but have absolutely no informed idea whatsoever about what shoes to choose when we get there. The light field stuff will eventually solve the focus thing for us (and Panasonic's post focus function is a nod to that with stills albeit a simulation using high fps rather than something like the Lytro) so its just a question of finding workarounds along the route until the technology catches up to make that viable for motion at a sensible level. I doubt we'll ever solve the shoe thing though ! I do apply the end product of the endless tweaking of AF for stills in a just about still making actual money industry but yeah I'd certainly make more money tuning cars instead of AF !

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins. How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film. Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality. The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real! Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted.. my humble opinion..

Certain people only know how to live in pack societies. Actually when not both sides are right... not so rare to happen. "There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

I did a run n gun low budget documentary series for a small TV station last year, and I used the Canon C100mkII AF 85% of the time. I saw the light. Since then, I didn't have a job that I had to rush so much, so I have use AF only on the Samsung NX1 3 times, while on the Ronin with, maybe, 95% success. For the next chapter in my pro life, I am really looking forward for a C100mkIII or C200, or whatever will be called, with a CN-E lens, I am expecting this combo to increase my productivity vastly. AF is here to stay, it is not philosophical, it is just becoming better and better, C300mkII has already a few more AF tricks, but there will be always MF for purists and people and situations that we need total control. In my opinion Dual Pixel is way ahead any other system right now. It seems like Canon bet on the right horse. Again. Not only they pleased the hordes of their amateur funs that do not care (or need, or have the way to edit) 10 bit video, and only care to keep the occasional family moment, while shooting pleasing color pictures, but they also transferred successfully AF to the pro level.

Great job with matching these two cameras...for those preaching the 5D as the holy grail...it's your opinion...nothing but subjectivity there...I remember one critisism of the GH5 being that you can actually match it with the 5D...or have to...lol....well only if that's what you're looking for...I prefer Panasonics image over Canon...what does that mean?...NOTHING....to be exact...just my taste...my preference...just like yours....and it holds the same weight...if the 5D is the image you're loving....happy for you...as I'm happy with my Panny cameras....

Thank you for double checking for me. Yeah the FZ2500 is awesome and to be honest with you, without the slow and quick function, the GH5 seems a little less intriguing to me... as silly as I'm sure that sounds. I think I will definitely wait to see how the summer firmware is before I buy one. D7500 here I come... and maybe another FZ2500... or maybe I should follow your lead and go with the LS300... I never used the dolly zoom, but I figured it was entirely some kind of digital scaling... or some shit... oh well that's easy enough to do with my slider.

This is in line with what is floating about and seems reasonable given their standard release schedules. I'm gonna take a stab and say they'll probably price it around 6-7000 mark, so more than the C100 mk ii was at release. Either that or they'll actually make it a C100 Mkiii with a small step up in spec as before. Maybe 1080p100 and 4kp30 Canon seem to have some kind of aversion to high speed so I wouldn't expect more than 100fps. They could also make a mildly upgraded C100 MK iii AND a C200 and not cannibalise the line, this would make some sense and keep the core C100 format profitable, a bit like the constant upgrades of the 550D ad nauseum. TBH it's the one I've been waiting for, but we all know pinning hopes on Canon these days is a bit like waiting for Father Christmas and seeing your dodgy uncle walk in wearing just a beard and novelty boxers.

Dave thanks for the info, don't mind these pricks... they know not what they do. Everything you've mentioned seems very plausible, Canon is known for their tier system. They also believe 4K is not the be all end all for all shooters, so it would make sense that they retire the C100, drop the C100ii price, and bring the C200 in at the original C100ii MSRP. Thanks again, can't wait for Cinegear.

Yikes!

Don't reveal your sources Dave!