jcs

I think they are both great cameras, with their own unique looks. With MKiii you get ML Raw and it's simply gorgeous. With the 1Dc you get Canon LOG, equally gorgeous IMO, just different. Of those options, if you can afford it, I would go with the 1Dc... when paired with the right glass, the image is on a different level. There's just nothing else like it at that price point. But, in all honesty, if I had $4000 to spend, I would probably get a C100 mkii before either of them... DPAF, 60p, small file size, Canon LOG, XLR professional quality audio... a truly professional level video camera. You may be able to find a used C100 mkii and a used A7Sii if you're really interested in the Sony. 

thanks guys
I like it becomming an argument about hate/love.  I agree, I wish the HRC campaign wasn't about hating on Trump but addressing her platform and issues to inspire people.  By now we all know what a nut ball Trump is.
 
We shot at 4.5k widescreen.  I always tell them if they want they can crop as 16:9
It was Tucker Walsh the director's idea.  I just really have the roll in the photography and helping to direct the poses of the actors.  The biggest fun thing is with two or three people how to position them.  Also with a single portrait as well - angle their body - where to put their hands, their gaze.  Actions they can do.  
I wish I shot more wider shots and more slo motion.  Also 2nd unit had a good idea to have them walk into focus.  
There are always different things to do that I forgot.  I should look at more Egglestein or other street photographers in the future to see what poses they get.

Great piece.
The hashtag, I agree, is a bit awkward. Trump is capitalized in the hashtag. My first interpretation was Trump as a noun using  Yoda grammar (verb in the wrong place). The video doesn't ever use Trump as a verb. The refrain that is constantly repeated is "we believe". 
A good slogan is one that is clear and not open to misunderstanding. I can just imagine Trump followers calling his opponents haters because of the hashtag.

rEVOLution

In this piece it means both ways. This is more clear when you study all the content from both sides. The unconscious mind doesn't do well with negatives. A better form is #wepromotelove and leave out the other party, which is unfortunately a negative implication in today's politics.

Looks great David!
Promoting hate, however, causes suffering. Hating someone is like taking poison and expecting to hurt the other person. The only person hurt is the hater, mentally and physically: stress hormones damage healthy tissue, reduce immune function, etc.
Additionally, look at all the information about what is going on, from both sides, and from other countries around the world if you'd like to get a better understanding of what is really happening. Do you want to be a leader helping to heal yourself, your community, and the planet, or do you want to be a slave-pawn in someone else's selfish game?
We need to focus on loving ourselves, those around us, and everyone else around the planet, and holding those accountable who are promoting division and hate, replacing them with more enlightened leaders.

Looks great David!
Promoting hate, however, causes suffering. Hating someone is like taking poison and expecting to hurt the other person. The only person hurt is the hater, mentally and physically: stress hormones damage healthy tissue, reduce immune function, etc.
Additionally, look at all the information about what is going on, from both sides, and from other countries around the world if you'd like to get a better understanding of what is really happening. Do you want to be a leader helping to heal yourself, your community, and the planet, or do you want to be a slave-pawn in someone else's selfish game?
We need to focus on loving ourselves, those around us, and everyone else around the planet, and holding those accountable who are promoting division and hate, replacing them with more enlightened leaders.

Looks great David!
Promoting hate, however, causes suffering. Hating someone is like taking poison and expecting to hurt the other person. The only person hurt is the hater, mentally and physically: stress hormones damage healthy tissue, reduce immune function, etc.
Additionally, look at all the information about what is going on, from both sides, and from other countries around the world if you'd like to get a better understanding of what is really happening. Do you want to be a leader helping to heal yourself, your community, and the planet, or do you want to be a slave-pawn in someone else's selfish game?
We need to focus on loving ourselves, those around us, and everyone else around the planet, and holding those accountable who are promoting division and hate, replacing them with more enlightened leaders.

In this piece it means both ways. This is more clear when you study all the content from both sides. The unconscious mind doesn't do well with negatives. A better form is #wepromotelove and leave out the other party, which is unfortunately a negative implication in today's politics.

Looks great David!
Promoting hate, however, causes suffering. Hating someone is like taking poison and expecting to hurt the other person. The only person hurt is the hater, mentally and physically: stress hormones damage healthy tissue, reduce immune function, etc.
Additionally, look at all the information about what is going on, from both sides, and from other countries around the world if you'd like to get a better understanding of what is really happening. Do you want to be a leader helping to heal yourself, your community, and the planet, or do you want to be a slave-pawn in someone else's selfish game?
We need to focus on loving ourselves, those around us, and everyone else around the planet, and holding those accountable who are promoting division and hate, replacing them with more enlightened leaders.

Interesting. The noise in the blacks for the latest firmware for the C300 II, especially with Canon Log 3, is really low. This test shows the improvements: 
I haven't done A/B tests, however just pulling up the blacks and seeing basically no noise in my quick tests with Canon Log 3 was very impressive. The low-light image looks better than even the A7S II (didn't test crazy high ISOs). Since Canon was able to improve noise performance on the C300 II, perhaps the 1DX II with dual Digic 6+ processors can also provide even better noise performance in the future with a firmware update.
Someone mentioned a full-frame 5DC rumor (or perhaps that would be the 1DC II?). By crippling the 5DIV for video, they've left open the option to make a full-frame cinema camera (maybe that's also an option for the C700 with the rumored sensor swap capability; 5DC/1DC II would be the b-camera option).
I think even some of the die-hard Canon bashers are realizing that color is number one, which is why there's so much emotion around lack of other features, such as slow motion, log formats, video aids, and crop factors. If Canon didn't have great color, there wouldn't be any controversy- people just wouldn't use or care about their cameras.

When Philip Bloom asked for my Clog picture style today, I went back into the Canon Picture Style editor and removed all the color changes I had made, and now it's only a gamma curve with contrast at -4 (sharpness off and saturation at 0 (not taken down or raised)). http://brightland.com/t/1DX2_JLOG2f.pf3.zip . Note that the results are very similar to the ancient Technicolor CineStyle (which I also tested on the 1DX II- think I like just Standard with contrast at -4, sharpness and saturation at 0 the best so far vs CLog emulation: less surprises in post (might still be useful outdoors and other very high DR shots)). 

Well, if you really want to be precise, Pentax are actually the ones with the worst video among the DSLR makers; even the mighty K-1 has video that's almost as comically awful as Fujifilm's was in their pre-Sony era. Not that it really helps Canon's cause, having DSLR video better only than a manufacturer who's never bothered putting in any real effort in that area.

The C300 II is selling very well, sold out until then end of September: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134579-REG/canon_0635c002_eos_c300_mark_ii.html
We use the C300 II along with the 1DX II (for low-profile run & gun, travel shoots, and occasional 4k60p) and while it's not an ideal 'all-in-one' solution, it works very well in production given the excellent PDAF AF and great color and skintones straight out of camera (a real time-saver in post). The C300 II + 1DX II is lot more expensive than an FS7 up front, however time is money and ultimately getting better images (in focus!) in less time is more important than the initial savings for an FS7 (we're selling our FS700- 60p is good enough (and 120p on the A7S II is useful too (can match A7S II to Canon with a bit of work in post)).
As more professionals find PDAF saving time and money in higher and higher end productions, the PDAF cameras will naturally get more popular. The C700 will be even more like an Alexa/Amira but with PDAF- that's something ARRI and Sony don't have. Sony could bring their A7R II level AF (or better) to the pro cameras someday, and if they can get closer to ARRI/Canon for skintones in real-world lighting conditions (not just the studio), they'll put up a good challenge to Canon (and even ARRI).

Surely, there must be demand for this camera somewhere in the market? Why would Canon even bother making it? 
That said, it seems overlarge and not very 2016 (more 2013). 
The Sony FS700 is four years old and can output 4k120fps RAW in a much smaller package. 
The Kinefinity Terra can do 5k60fps RAW in a form factor the size of your hand, and cost less than $6000. 
The VaricamLT is far more affordable and compact. 
What exactly is Canons strategy here? Clearly it looks like a rental speciality for high end production - but with Arri and RED still innovating, it's a tough one. 

You can't make a real CLog profile, just an S-curve to try to emulate it. I wasn't happy with what it does to colors and messing around in post to look good, so I stopped using it. I tried this back in May on the 1DX II.

You can't make a real CLog profile, just an S-curve to try to emulate it. I wasn't happy with what it does to colors and messing around in post to look good, so I stopped using it. I tried this back in May on the 1DX II.

The FS7 is great for slomo, the C300 II is great for AF, color, and skintones. Getting ARRI-like color from the C300 II is an amazing deal and the DPAF is super useful. Not having to mess with color AT ALL (if just wanting accurate/pleasing skintones) is a great advantage of the C300 II over the FS7. That's why Canon is still so popular.

The FS7 is great for slomo, the C300 II is great for AF, color, and skintones. Getting ARRI-like color from the C300 II is an amazing deal and the DPAF is super useful. Not having to mess with color AT ALL (if just wanting accurate/pleasing skintones) is a great advantage of the C300 II over the FS7. That's why Canon is still so popular.

The FS7 is great for slomo, the C300 II is great for AF, color, and skintones. Getting ARRI-like color from the C300 II is an amazing deal and the DPAF is super useful. Not having to mess with color AT ALL (if just wanting accurate/pleasing skintones) is a great advantage of the C300 II over the FS7. That's why Canon is still so popular.

Crop Factor is based in the Image Circle, that's why the diagonal is used instead of the width. The diagonal is based on the video mode not stills mode (entire sensor), so it's a little more work to compute the Crop Factor. Your math is indeed simpler, unfortunately it will lead to confusion since it's not actually the Crop Factor. You could call it Width Ratio or similar to let people know it's not the image circle diameter ratio and not the actual Crop Factor.

Narrative commercials are pretty much guaranteed to need storyboards. You have to plan out each second and make sure the angles/scenes are shot in the allotted time. I think they're really helpful in all of types of film other than documentary. If the director wants to take the time to do it then it's really beneficial.

good responses here
i would say it totally depends on what youre doing... what are you producing? a doc? a kubrick-like feature?
even though im a fine artist, im literally working on a 14 foot drawing right now, i came kicking and screaming to the crushing realization that to make my first feature the way i want, i have to storyboard every shot. that epiphany came some time ago, and im a lot more knowledgable now, so the very idea that i even though it was optional is laughable today, its ironic. but thats for me
the SIMPLEST storyboards can be amazingly useful, a quick sketch that anyone can do can show lens choice, character movement, camera movement, etc. hell, look at this guy these suck and his films have worked out ok

When I first got into professional filmmaking I went on shoots with other professionals to learn how they worked. The shoots that were well planned, with detailed shot lists, storyboards, pre-rehearsals, table-reads, fully blocked and rehearsed, etc., always went much smoother and the crew were much happier, resulting in much better products than shoots that winged it or were otherwise not well prepared.
My day job which funds my film projects is software engineering (I currently only shoot for our own internal projects, currently working full time to develop Cosmic Flow). The same patterns apply to creating software: planning, testing ('rehearsing'), iterating (re-rewriting the script/shots after rehearsing/table-reading/testing) is critical for a smooth production. When working with teams, sometimes folks don't want to do the 'hard/not-very-fun' work of planning, testing, and iterating. My last few projects didn't have as much planning as I would like and the results weren't as good as we need (even live interviews can use good planning). Since I have to operate the camera, handle sound and lighting, and do the editing, I take steps to make my life easier for the final edit. Our current shoots in production are much better planned and the results are also much better.
There's an idea in software called the "lazy programmer". This actually means the opposite of what it says: the programmer spends a great deal of time and effort planning, designing, and iterating so that after the software is developed, their life will be much easier moving forward as it will be more reliable, easier to use, and easier to maintain. Thus the extra up front effort vastly reduces effort and headaches down the line (there is a balance- too much planning is counter-productive). The same pattern applies to any form of product creation, especially film.

When I first got into professional filmmaking I went on shoots with other professionals to learn how they worked. The shoots that were well planned, with detailed shot lists, storyboards, pre-rehearsals, table-reads, fully blocked and rehearsed, etc., always went much smoother and the crew were much happier, resulting in much better products than shoots that winged it or were otherwise not well prepared.
My day job which funds my film projects is software engineering (I currently only shoot for our own internal projects, currently working full time to develop Cosmic Flow). The same patterns apply to creating software: planning, testing ('rehearsing'), iterating (re-rewriting the script/shots after rehearsing/table-reading/testing) is critical for a smooth production. When working with teams, sometimes folks don't want to do the 'hard/not-very-fun' work of planning, testing, and iterating. My last few projects didn't have as much planning as I would like and the results weren't as good as we need (even live interviews can use good planning). Since I have to operate the camera, handle sound and lighting, and do the editing, I take steps to make my life easier for the final edit. Our current shoots in production are much better planned and the results are also much better.
There's an idea in software called the "lazy programmer". This actually means the opposite of what it says: the programmer spends a great deal of time and effort planning, designing, and iterating so that after the software is developed, their life will be much easier moving forward as it will be more reliable, easier to use, and easier to maintain. Thus the extra up front effort vastly reduces effort and headaches down the line (there is a balance- too much planning is counter-productive). The same pattern applies to any form of product creation, especially film.