bwhitz

I would be surprised if some of canon's Hollywood consultants (who pretend to be on the side of democratizing toolmaking tools) specifically persuaded canon to price these out of reach of the masses to keep their "professional" edge. You can't have 20-somethings learning 4k cinematography and putting you out of business now can you?

[quote author=Per Lichtman link=topic=572.msg3847#msg3847 date=1334262480] I appreciate Apple a great deal and look to them to lead in many things, but I think they are a very poor example for the point you are trying to make about hardware pricing. :) [/quote] I think he meant more of how apple wasn't afraid to cannibalize laptop sales with something like a ipad. They knew that was where technology was heading and they made it happen. Canon would have priced an ipad at $30,000 for "executives only" or something stupid like that. Hybrid imaging is the future. It's insane to keep dividing markets like this. The EOS C 4k DSLR is just a 1DX or 5DIII with better hardware for shits sake!!! They're charging $12,000 FOR A SOFTWARE UPGRADE!!!

Well, in all seriousness, we as the cinema community need to launch a internet boycott/awareness campaign in response. Canon has the right to sell their products at whatever price they want... and we have the right to say whatever we want about them. So lets do it. We need to let everyone know that they are selling $3500 hardware at 5x the price... This product segmenting is getting ridiculous. It should actually be illegal to artificially limit products by software... unless the product is purely software itself.

If the 4k DSLR comes out, is actually $10k, and still uses a DigicV processor like the 5D3... then Canon deserves to really get blasted on the net. I hope they don't think they could get away with something like that.

At $10k... a 4k DSLR is still really stupid and insulting. Not as stupid and insulting as the C300... but still really really infuriating.

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3564#msg3564 date=1333904148] as he stated on my last shoot where i did some tests. "the gh2 footage can't be graded it fell apart, the 7d held up a bit more but still couldn't push it as much as your new 5D, and the alexa footage was flawless." [/quote] Well, I don't know what to tell you here... what patch were you using? Regardless of if you're a "professional" grader or not... if you're seeing that 45mb/s Canon 7D footage is holding up better than 150mb/s intra-frame material... then you're doing something wrong. The Intra GH2 patches are easily the most gradable native images besides Red or an Alexa. [quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3564#msg3564 date=1333904148] and grading are all being done on professional telecine systems, not on a computer at home. [/quote] This doesn't make any difference at all besides repeatable accuracy. Colors are colors. Pushing data is just pushing data. Nothing "magical" about professional systems any more. Software is software. [quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3564#msg3564 date=1333904148] but its still so sharp, you can actually read all the tiny wording on all the billboards, and wow, look how clean those blacks are! [/quote] Uhhh... it's still really really soft. It's good for a 720p finish, but it's still not 1080p. Respectfully, I don't know how you're working with Alexa and Red footage, and then still thinking this is sharp. Blacks are also still mushy. There's just not much tonality in the image still. Download and Watch this EOSHD video at 1080p... it's similar in subject matter to your sample... but it's got about twice the detail. Much sharper defined blacks as well. This is how 1080p footage is supposed to look. http://vimeo.com/32520456

[quote]"my gh2 is pretty sharp as well but noway looks as filmic as my 5d and when you try to grade it, it to all falls apart, as does the 7d."[/quote] Again, you've just got to use some good lenses. Part of "the Canon look" is just Canon lenses. I know what you're saying about the GH2 video look. It's the same thing I though when I first started watching GH2 footage. But, it really is the panny lenses to blame. They are terrible. And as far as grading... you really need to try a new patch then. The Intra-frame and low-GOP motion makes the GH2 look like a different camera. I was about to sell mine before the hack came out, but it really took it to another level. And yea, the stock GH2 image really can't take any grading at all. But when you've got 150mb/s Intra... well, it's pretty much uncompressed. I can do anything I want to the image now without losing fidelity or quality. It's great. BTW, the 5D and 7D both have identical compression. The 5D falls apart just as much as the 7D in grading. [quote]"its just funny that how people discuss things on this forum they should rename it the anti-eos forum."[/quote] Well to be fair, in the beginning, Andrew, as well as myself were huge canon fans. I was actually an original 5D shooter before manual controls and before people really knew about them. So I've been with canon from the beginning of this. But after no updates/upgrades in two years... then the C300 screw-over fest... and mediocre 5DIII upgrade... you start to jump ship. [quote]"To me, the Alexa is more pleasing and filmic (even though it might look 'soft' by comparison), and this goes for the 5DMKIII also. The 5D has the same type of unaliased image which i prefer."[/quote] But the detail in the Alexa is almost 2x the 5DIII. The Alexa isn't sharp, it's REALLY detailed. 5DIII isn't sharp either, but it lack the detail to make a 1080p finished product. [quote]"The 5D has the same type of unaliased image which i prefer. I find the C300 much more video (in fact i chose the 5DMKIII over the C300 for a recent drama project )."[/quote] yea, you might just prefer the softer look. Which is totally fine. I also find the C300 a little video like though. Overall, it has a filmic "feel" to it. But the detail looks really digital to me... like canon's other camcorders. This makes allot of sense though, because the C300 uses the same processing as the XF100.

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3500#msg3500 date=1333726475] so, i have some super sharp and amazing quality night time video i shot in time square for a job, i tried posting it for you all to see on vimeo, but i keep getting a failure to convert message, anyone else know whats going on with that or how else i can show you guys. if you saw this footage you would see there is nothing soft about it in the least. [/quote] Don't know? What's the format you're trying to upload? But yea, I'm sure it looks great. It's not a bad camera, just really soft and not a 1080p image. I use to think that my 5D/7D were sharp too, but then I upgraded to a 24" 1920x1200 cinema display and saw how Red/Alexa/GH2 footage really looks at 1080p... then it made my 5D footage look like standard definition. Same thing with the 5DIII. Looks great on my little 13" macbook screen... looks terribly soft on my desktop. I do have 20/10 vision though... so I'm extra sensitive to this stuff.  :P

"Katon, I was interested in your experience editing and mixing footage from Alexa, Red and "minor" ones.  Thank you" Yes, me too. Because I use to love my 7D/5D, until I saw Alexa and Red footage. On a good 1080p monitor, like my 24" Apple cinema display, Canon DSLR footage cannot be any further from Red or Alexa footage. It looks like SD in direct comparison.The GH2 with proper lensing looks MUCH MUCH more like Alexa or Red. If it doesn't, you're probably using the cruddy Panasonic lenses. Which I agree... look very video like. But put some Canon, Nikon, or Ziess glass on the GH2 and bam!!! It's a baby Alexa or Red! In fact, I really like using older, less contrasty, lenses on the GH2. Really gives it a nice edge in exposure range and combats the baked in contrast. Allot of the "the Canon look" is just using Canon lenses. Same with the Nikon look. The GH2 renders very balanced neutral colors, with a slight  green bias. The "look" of the GH2 is HEAVILY dependent on the glass for this reason. I just got a request the other day after someone saw my hacked GH2 short because they wanted "The girl with the dragon tattoo" look. They specifically didn't want the 5D... said it looked like "old movies". Times are a changin'.

[quote author=cameraboy link=topic=494.msg3245#msg3245 date=1333131808] GH2 has great resolution  but resolves around 780 lines ... [/quote] The GH2 certainly resolves much higher than 780 lines. I just did a comparison between the GH2 and the EX3 (proven 1000 line camera) and the GH2 still had more detail. The 5DII and 5DIII have about 700-750 lines of resolution... You have to remember... allot of these tests have ulterior motives. A 1000 line camera with 100mb/s and Intra frame motion for $800 is a serious threat to allot of people. Most C300 owners just don't want to believe there are cheaper cameras that have the same resolving power. It's all mind games they're doing.

[quote author=raphwoody link=topic=494.msg3218#msg3218 date=1333092160] But won't such a camera, for all intents and purposes, make the Sony F3 obsolete? [/quote] Well, it's going to be obsolete one day... and honestly, the F3 and C300 (while they make great pictures) were obsolete on arrival. I mean c'mon internal 8-bit for $10,000+ cameras? Get real. The specs were a joke the moment they were announced. As great of a sensor the F3 has... recording to a codec that's rivaled by $800 still cameras (stock) and still shooting to a lower frame rate (F3 can't really do 60fps practically) is just nonsense these days. Sony, Panasonic, and Canon REALLY need to step the game up. 4k mjepg or 10-bit 4:4:4 at 2k should be the standard this year (and all at least 60fps full res). Even iphones are shooting 1080p. We need a HUGE jump in the "professional" level standards. I still think this is an April fools joke... but really, they do need to release something of this magnitude.

April FEWLS!!!

"The C300 can easily be the better choice without 4K. How? Better DR, Low Light ability, built in NDs, XLR ports, monitor, etc." Ok I don't know why people keep thinking the C300 has some kind of "magic" sensor. It's not any more technically advanced than canon's other sensors. It just happens to bin the pixel on board because the C300's processor is SO OLD that it cannot do it on the software side. That's it. The 5DIII's and 1DX sensors already have more DR than the C300. They're newer technology. C300 even lacks gap-less micro lensing that even the 7D has. But, yea, I do agree that the C300 will probably be better than a 4k DSLR for event shooting and TV. But, seriously, you're using built in ND's as an arguing point? That's like the stupidest point ever made. Who gives a crap about built in ND's. Just take the 15 seconds it takes to put a filter on... to think canon can actually trick people into paying $10k more for something as stupid as "built in ND filters" is amazing.

[quote author=brad link=topic=176.msg1303#msg1303 date=1326678890] Check this out: Bill Mayher on why the 'socialist' model is better via the profitable NFL (US football) [url=http://vimeo.com/35003246]Bill Maher - Irritable Bowl Syndrome[/url] [/quote] That fact that a sport's economic model is being compared to an entire countries' is beyond stupid... and why I still don't take liberals seriously. Football has a fixed number of players, teams, ect... it is controllable. Players are "picked" based on physical and mental abilities before they ever step foot in a stadium. All those "not worthy" are "cut" and never make it. Is this what Bill Mayher is suggests we do in our population as well? Socialism will work... but we'll need to "cut" all the "undesirables" from the general population first. That way, when the wealth is re-distributed, we'll know it isn't being wasted. At least with capitalism, anyone has a chance... as "unfair" as it may be. You want a working socialist model? Well, then you'll have to die if you're not 6ft tall and IQ over 100. What will a functioning socialist civilization look like? Logan's Run. For a civilization to function or grow, the output must exceed or meet the upkeep. Would you like this to happen freely among the population? Or would you like a team of bureaucrats to decide who is "worthy" or not? A working socialist model is not a free-for-all like people seem to think. It is impossible, in any functioning civilization model (capitalism or socialism), for an individual with no value or contribution to society, to live a life equal to those who do. It's the truth nobody wants to hear... but it is the truth. Also, as far as cameras and filmmaking is concerned. You have capitalism to thank for the $700 GH2. The socialist consortium of manufactures would never allow this to happen if they didn't half to. Competition from other divisions and companies is what keeps technology moving forward. Canon, Panasonic, and Sony are FAR from capitalistic in the way they function internally. They are best described as "collectivists". Meaning they function internally with the principles of socialism (reduced competition, non-canibalization of products, "planned" market places), yet still collect profits from a free-market. This is what needs to be regulated, but it's far from capitalistic ideals. It's a socialist philosophy they're subscribing to. Could you imagine what products we would have available if their wasn't free choice in the market? We'd be lucky to be shooting on $500 a foot 8mm film stock. When there's no free-market, no choice, and no liberty... the market leaders/producers can do whatever the hell they want. When consumers have free choice of what products they buy, and the profits of the manufactures are dependent on those the consumers, they are forced to continually improve and create new products. This is capitalism. It's about keeping the market in check and progress moving forward by protecting the liberties of the consumer. When this is lost... the system flips over and the manufactures are free to do what they please. Including, and especially, dragging out technology as long as they please... The real problem that needs to be stopped here (and especially in hollywood) is nepotism. Nepotism is bad for any model, socialist or capitalist. People are comfortable giving money, jobs, and opportunity to people they know... regardless of skill set. This leads to only "people who know people" getting a shot. It's far from being related to any economic model.