EthanAlexander

You're definitely right that canon and sony are safer bets, especially in the eyes of clients. But those things change, slowly. It wasn't long ago that professionals wouldn't be caught dead with a tiny mirrorless panasonic but look how that's changing I can actually see a bunch of people buying the C200 over this, then getting frustrated with the raw workflow and trading for the EVA because it similarly has an EF mount and a touch screen. Maybe that was their plan all along lol! I really think sony shooters will wait for the FS7III or FS5II with some sort of DPAF tech and oversampled sensors. I know I will.

The GH5 is a compact sedan with a ferrari engine in it but sometimes you need the whole ferrari. In this case, that means the features and form factor of a real video camera. Against Canon and Sony in the price range, this has dual native ISO, 5.7K sensor for both oversampling and eventually 5.7K raw, 2K up to 240fps, electronic stabilization, and a lighter body. Having said that, the EF mount really kills the draw for Sony shooters who have been speedboosting or using PL. This is the single biggest drawback they could have easily avoided.

I wouldn't even care if they only catered to expensive cameras if they were actually adding to the discussion in meaningful, transparent, and honest ways. Prolost still does some great articles that actually inform. For instance: https://prolost.com/blog/rawvslog?rq=log "raw is not magic" helped me learn a lot about how code values are actually recoded in camera and better understand the pros and cons of raw and log. It's night and day more helpful than cinema5D's "You NEEEEEED raw. What's that? A brand new, expensive camera that shoots raw happens to be affiliate linked in the post and mentioned first thing? That's so weird... Totally not planned, we swear."

I'd like to add to the great points everyone's made: I've learned a ton from forums and youtube videos, (and it's quite a privilege for us to live in a world where all this info is available so readily) BUT, none of that knowledge has been a replacement for the MISTAKES I've made and what I've learned from them. Working through the issues that arise on set even on one day's shoot is worth 100 hours of online information, I'd say. This includes dealing with technical problems, working around location limitations, dealing with difficult talent or coworkers, leadership qualities, etc. Also, and I have no reason for this other than personal experience and going with my gut, I've found that taking some time to do other creative things like playing guitar actually help tremendously with my main craft.

Between this and the footage philip bloom and cinema5d shot (and more), I really don't see the appeal. Don't get me wrong: it looks good, highly detailed, but there's nothing I've seen that could justify the extra cost of media (both in recording and storage) and not having a second CFast slot to record to for a backup. Maybe it's the locations they're filming at. Or maybe it's just the talent behind the camera... I really just don't see why raw would benefit any of these shots over a solid, low compression 10 bit codec. Having said that, I'd gladly change my opinion if someone could post some footage that truly showed the latitude this afforded. I've seen plenty of ML raw vids that blew my mind but the C200 footage I've seen has been nothing short of underwhelming.

I'm with you, I just think that the article made no attempt to explain the downsides of shooting raw, of which there are many. It would help people make better decisions with their time and money. Yeah, and affiliate links are the bread and butter these days, I get it. My main point is more that they're taking a hot-topic camera and writing an article that doesn't address any of the downsides, in an attempt to get clicks and affiliate money without remaining fair to the readers they rely on. I'm sure they'll have an article about why you "NEED" to have a 5.7K sensor to oversample for 4K once we get closer to the EVA release. From a business standpoint, I get what they're doing. It's what we were talking about on the NoFilmSchool thread... it's the only way to survive now. I just wish they spent more time actually educating, addressing positives and negatives, and producing content that actually helped filmmakers (besides their car interviews or a few minutes of footage and test charts). Your metaphor is spot on, too.

Applause for staying so calm, @jcs! *Makes a post about how do we stay informed and keep from picking between two equally contrived political party lines* *Gets accused of being too liberal AND too conservative*

Saw an article explaining why we "should" shoot raw. It's basic, unhelpful information at best, misleading at worst. Has anyone seen a more blanket statement?: "Even for quick-turnaround shooters, the precision, image-richness, and future-proofing RAW shooting options provide make it a must-have feature for anyone buying a cinema camera today." Unless you are a first time shooter who can't get white balance within even 2500 Kelvin of the right spot or get exposure right within a stop or two there are very few benefits to raw that make it "necessary" vs a low-compression codec. And if you can't do those things, then why are you buying a camera as expensive as a C200? And if they're so concerned with readers getting the best image, why aren't they talking about how good a ML hacked canon still is these days? (Hint: it rhymes with: "there's no schmoney in that.") Is raw nice? Sure! Am I saying don't do it? No. All else equal, with unlimited budget and turnaround time, I say go for it, but this article is clearly aimed for people who are new to raw, and it doesn't accurately portray the reality of the pros and cons. Aside from the aforementioned, there's the whole issue of trying to fit more than 12 stops of dynamic range into a 12 or 10 bit linear recording, etc. But what's it do? It touts the C200. The FIRST thing it does is mention Canon's new camera (and then it does it another 7 times or so). Whether or not Canon paid them, they do have affiliate links, and I'd say an article like this is pushing the limits of ethics. I've been visiting the site less and less, but I think this is the end. What do you guys think? Overreaction? Or am I just late to the party realizing how useless the site has become? https://***URL not allowed***/shoot-footage-raw-you-should/

Only 1080. 4K is 8 bit. And not even 4:2:2. "EOS C200 can output either 1920x1080 YCC 4:2:2 10-bit over the HD-SDI Terminal, or 3840x2160 4:2:0 8-bit over the HDMI" http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2017/eos-c200-production-brief.shtml And to your other point, having to use a bulky 7" recorder is a big deal to a lot of ENG or even narratives (such as for gimbal use), so to act like it's no big deal is a bit of a stretch, especially when other cameras in the price range offer 10bit 4K internally.

Lucky Number Slevin! Great reference.

I have used them, yes. Wouldn't have answered if I hadn't I've used professionally pretty much every sony camera FS7 and down (and external recorders). In all but the most extreme cases (~90% of them) the internal XAVC recordings are just as good as a ProRes external. So, since he asked if it justified the extra cost and bulk of the inferno, I think the difference isn't worth it.

No. Absolutely not. There are plenty of comparisons online that show even under pretty severe grading it's not a big difference. All you'll really be doing is increasing the amount of storage you need by 4x-7x.

@DBounce I accidentally double posted. For consistency I'm quoting what you said in the duplicate here. Mods, can you delete the other thread? Thanks.

"Well today I found out directly from the Canon C200 engineers that the new codec that will be introduced early in 2018 will be XF-AVC YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit, and it will be a free upgrade (if you can call it that). It will also be recorded to the SD cards and not the CFast card." http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/24/new-codec-coming-to-the-c200-in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/ Seems to me this was a bit unethical promising a middle-ground codec upgrade (which you have to assume they did to increase both hype and sales) and then have it turn out it's only an improvement in that it can hold more metadata. What do you guys think?

"Well today I found out directly from the Canon C200 engineers that the new codec that will be introduced early in 2018 will be XF-AVC YCbCr 4:2:0 8bit, and it will be a free upgrade (if you can call it that). It will also be recorded to the SD cards and not the CFast card." http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/08/24/new-codec-coming-to-the-c200-in-2018-will-only-be-420-8-bit/ Seems to me this was a bit unethical promising a middle-ground coded upgrade (which you have to assume they did to increase both hype and sales. ) and then have it turn out it's only an improvement in that it can hold more metadata. What do you guys think?

This is why I believe so much in metaphor with a candy coating. I'm not saying it's the only way, but when you take into account the world we live in, where to make movies you need funding and to get funding you need eyeballs and to get eyeballs you need "flash," I think that the most broad-reaching tool in the box to affect any change is an action/adventure, thriller/mystery, or even horror film that's layered with metaphor. Having said that, don't discount documentaries too quickly. Many times they reach people outside of the "choir" and they do change hearts and minds. Do whatever you feel called to do! Also, yes.

This is why I'm a fan of metaphor (and I know I'm far from mastering storytelling because I've got a lot to learn about it). You can explore the Truth without pushing any agenda. Take for instance: Inception. On its face, it's about dreams, and to many, it's just a tense action thriller with great visuals. But for some, it sparked discussions of "what is reality?" Some went deeper than that and asked "are we in a dream right now? Can we ever really know?" Etc. But the great part about a movie like this is that it's a metaphorical exploration of reality and making art (looking at it from the perspective of the Inceptors being a movie crew and Robert Fisher being the movie audience) wrapped in a nice, entertaining candy-coating of action and adventure - so it reaches wide audiences. And I personally believe that, because it reaches some level of deeper Truth that applies to the human race, it has an effect on each and every one of us in a way that no politically charged or anger/hate/fear driven crusade could ever do, at least not in a way that allows each of us to come to our own conclusions. PS I purposely picked a seemingly innocuous (but super popular) movie to show that we can still affect people without aggravation.

It seems JCS is simply requesting that we as filmmakers make extra effort to make our films/videos have positive meaning. Left, right, up, or down, I think we can agree that's something to think about and is certainly applicable to a site full of filmmakers. I have discussions all the time with people about the purpose of film and whether it's our responsibility to be positive, refrain from opinion, just deliver entertainment, etc... I think it's worthwhile discussion.

I was looking at the bokeh

I don't know, looks like he was hitting his marks better than a lot of the actors I've dealt with...

Very cool thanks for sharing! How'd you mod the gopro lens? That shot at 2:02 is the bees f*cking KNEES my man

Matching with a color checker chart in Resolve makes any difference practically impossible to tell. It's scary how well it works, and it's very quick. The only caveat is that a chart won't account for huge mis-matches of resolution. As for all the other nuances that go into lenses, such as how far the background feels from the subject, the shape of the bokeh, lens flare... nobody's going to notice except internet know-it-alls with too much time, and too little hustle to go make their own films Number of blades and their shape would be one of the most quantifiable ways to match lenses, yes. This will affect the outside shape of the bokeh balls, but not whether or not it looks like an onion with rings in the middle, (and there are a lot of other things that go into the rendering of the out of focus areas than aperture blades) ... and it will have an effect on flare, but not the color.

Thank you so much! I was setting the key gain to 2 not the LGG gain... whoops. Thanks for taking the time. I'm going to use this a lot on interviews on the punch-ins from 4K. Just a little boost in perceived detail to help it match the wide.

I've got a pair of bose qc35's that I have been using with a 1/8" cable on shoots to monitor audio (love the noise cancellation to figure out what I'm hearing in the mics vs my own ears) but since they're bluetooth I'm thinking why not take advantage of that and use a battery powered transmitter? I accidentally pull on the audio cable at least once a shoot it seems like, and I wouldn't have to keep taking off my headphones when I go check a light, etc... Am I missing any negatives I haven't considered? This is the kind of product I'd buy: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1218934-REG/meelectronics_af_t1_bk_mee_af_t1_dual_headphone_bluetooth_audio.html

Focal length actually has nothing to do with "long faces:" it's the distance from the subject that affects perspective. The reason wide angle lenses are associated with unflattering faces is because people tend to get very close to the person to fill the frame of the shot. If you're trying to get head-to-toe coverage, you'll naturally have to back up from the subject, so your 12mm may work just fine... Since you're getting more coverage by going vertical, I guess you might need a little tighter of a lens, though. Having never shot vertically it's hard to say. I bet a 17 or 21mm would work great.