Canon C700 at IBC 2016 but no 1D C Mark II. Have they killed it off?

[jax_rox]

1 hour ago, Damphousse said:

Really man it just isn't cool coming on here and spreading rumors and getting people all hyped up over something that is just not true.  Netflix is not turning down Alexa for GH4.  Please stop saying that or at a minimum please provide links as I have to actual proof.

Lordy.

I never said that, ever. Feel free to read through my comments, and show me where, exactly, I said that Netflix are turning down Alexa footage and accepting GH4.

I didn't. What I'm saying is the requirement is arbitrary because it doesn't take into account anything other than the technical spatial resolution, despite the fact that an upscaled Alexa can potentially look better than UHD-acquired source material.

1 hour ago, Damphousse said:

Just in case anyone wants to know the real deal here is a document discussing Neflix's criteria and approved cameras.Netflix Originals Cameras.pdf

Yeah - no mention of Alexa. In fact, Netflix would prefer Blackmagic-acquired content than Alexa-acquired content. Which is the exact argument I made. Technical spatial resolution does not equate to a better image. 

Be outraged all you like, but in no instance did I ever say that Netflix was accepting GH4-acquired material. But, it's also not accepting Alexa-acquired material for its original content.

The point is a blanket 'UHD only' rule ignores the fact that spatial resolution does not make a good image, and that there are cameras that hold up poorer on a big screen than the Alexa, yet they're okay'd for original content acquisition whilst the Alexa isn't.

It's a discussion of the arbitrary nature of such a decision, rather than implying the GH4 would actually be accepted.

[Damphousse]

7 hours ago, jax_rox said:

Lordy.

I never said that, ever. Feel free to read through my comments, and show me where, exactly, I said that Netflix are turning down Alexa footage and accepting GH4.

Uhh...

23 hours ago, jax_rox said:

I guess, technically, a show originated on the A7sII or GH4 would have more chance of getting through than something shot on an Alexa...

 

12 hours ago, jax_rox said:

A blanket rule is a bit strange, and suggests that an A7sII or GH4 shot show would have more chance of being approved (as they are originating in UHD) than an Alexa originating in 2k or 3.2k despite the fact that we all know the Alexa footage would probably look better.

Sounds to me like someone just can't admit their hyperbole is flat out wrong.

Anyone who watches the Netflix howto video that comes away from that with the impression that "an A7sII or GH4 shot show would have more chance of being approved (as they are originating in UHD) than an Alexa" needs to see a psychiatrist.

Look jax_rox I realize when you started this little tirade you didn't know about the raw requirement which is understandable.  But now that you know please quit chanting "4K, A7SII, GH4" over and over again.  The ironic thing is Netflix said 4k AND raw.  You are the only one that seems to be fixated on 4K and can't read any words beyond that.

[jax_rox]

8 hours ago, Damphousse said:

Anyone who watches the Netflix howto video that comes away from that with the impression that "an A7sII or GH4 shot show would have more chance of being approved (as they are originating in UHD) than an Alexa" needs to see a psychiatrist.

Anyone who thinks that's what I was implying maybe needs to do some more work on reading comprehension and critical thinking. Or do I need to use more emojis to convey the emotion from now on? 

I'll have a quota of four per post. Work for you?

Anyone who doesn't get the basis of the point is about arbitrary rules that only take into account paper spec, rather than the actual image probably should get their head checked, right? 

We talk ad nauseam about how a paper spec sheet doesn't equate to a better image, and here we have a real world example of an original content company caring only about a paper spec sheet rather than the image. A company that rejects the Alexa, but accepts C300 or Blackmagic.

Rejects the Alexa. An FS5 meets the criteria for Netflix, but an Alexa won't!

But yes, rather than talk about that point, let's ensure this devolves into a discussion about semantics that goes nowhere 

[IronFilm]

On 9/4/2016 at 5:09 PM, Damphousse said:

Just in case anyone wants to know the real deal here is a document discussing Neflix's criteria and approved cameras.

Approved Camera List

Canon C300 Mk II
Canon C500
Panasonic VariCam 35
Panasonic VariCam LT
RED Dragon
RED Weapon
Sony F55
Sony F65
Blackmagic Design  URSA Mini 4.6K
Blackmagic Design  URSA 4.6K

And of course this caveat...

Secondary Cameras:

● Any cameras other than the primary camera (crash, POV, drone, underwater, etc.) must be  approved by Netflix. 

● Test footage should be shot and provided to dailies and post­production to ensure compatibility with  primary camera.

 

Absolutely nothing about accepting the GH4 while simultaneously rejecting an Alexa.

Netflix Originals Cameras.pdf

Kinda strange neither F5, FS5, or FS700 raw is on that list!
RED MX cameras are also not listed.

[John Brawley]

Netflix will accept any camera originated material for content they decide to acquire but that they don't commision.  If you come up with a great film or doco, then they won't care what you shot it on.

If they are the commissioning producer, then the 4K mantra applies.  If you pitch a series that they pay for the production of, then yeah, they want it 4K acquired.

Pretty simple.

JB

[jgharding]

I like the look of the footage I've seen so far. A sort of Alexa meets Canon warmth... It's nice to have the option of this look.

It's just a shame they've not developed compressed raw. Red have had it forever, Sony have just developed a version but still require an external box... Canon want you to put a box on the back and have raw uncompressed! Arri's dual-gain sensor tech and high-rate ProRes is so good you don't really need it.

That's a real shame for the C700, as are the usual Canon caveats: "if you want 444 it has to a be 2k, and 4k ProRes is capped at 30fps". But why? Bolt on the stupid box and you get 4K raw at 120fps. It's like the abject stupidity of the Canon-only rule "if you want high speed it's got to be 720p". Just laughable, there's pulling wool here, we've seen high speed from compacts at 4k 120fps.

I just don't get this intentional data-rate throttling... it made sense with Epic and Scarlet as a cut down Epic... but this is supposed to be Canon's flagship. They should have allowed the highes rate 4444 ProRes at 12-bit.

They did it with the C500 and they've done it again. How do you expect to truly compete in this sector with Red, who give you 4 or 5 or 6 or 8k RAW compressed at even 10:1 looking great, or Arri and the Amira, which can in some versions give you ProRes 4444 to a Cfast, with so much detail it out-resolves most 4K cams and a huge clean dynamic range.

Looking at the C700 spec sheet I see no reason not to hire an Amira really, or an Epic or Weapon if I want a ton of data for compositing.

The image is nice as usual, but this sin't supposed to be mid-range... it's supposed to be a pro tool that delivers and lets you spec for your job.

[Damphousse]

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Kinda strange neither F5, FS5, or FS700 raw is on that list!
RED MX cameras are also not listed.

I don't work for Netflix so all I know is what is on the web which anyone else can easily Google.  The impression I get is they are continually evaluating cameras.  My guess would be the list isn't comprehensive.  I saw this back in the day with DSLRs and stock agencies.  They had an approved list but cameras were coming out so frequently that as long as your camera was in the same ballpark and met the minimum specs it was fine.  They did QC and would let you know if they had a problem.

Honestly I thought this thread started with an insightful post by Jimmy.  Contrary to jax_rox's ludicrous pronouncements the people at Netflix are very knowledgeable and didn't make their decision lightly.  And honestly characterizing it as Netflix's decision is misleading.  Of course if someone doesn't bother to read a little background it makes sense that they would just think this is a Netflix thing.  The fact of the matter is Netflix is a member of the UHD Alliance.  And the UHD Alliance has laid out specific criteria for their certification.  If you look at the companies and people that are a part of the alliance you rapidly realize they have more experience and knowledge than someone on the internet ranting about Canon's awful color.

 

Quote

Resolution: 3,840x2,160 pixels, otherwise known as 4K.

Color depth: 10-bit (important for HDR, as most other TVs are just 8-bit).

Color gamut: Wide, including the ability to show at least 90 percent of the P3 color gamut (check out Ultra HD 4K TV color, part 1 and part 2 for more on this).

High dynamic range: Specifically the ability to use SMPTE ST2084's electro-optical transfer function, which Dolby helped create (check out What is HDR? for more info).

Minimum brightness and contrast ratios: This is probably the most interesting one, as it's great for consumers and shows the different players here at work. There are two possible minimum specs. A minimum brightness of 1,000 nits, along with a black level of a maximum of 0.05 nits (20,000:1 contrast ratio), or a minimum brightness of 540 nits, along with a black level of a maximum of 0.0005 (1,080,000:1).

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-uhd-alliance-premium-certified/

I really feel for the TV makers.  The fact of the matter is a high quality 1080p smart TV is perfectly adequate for everybody.  There is not a whole lot of true 4K content out there and even when it is available it doesn't make me want to toss a perfectly good TV and spend $1,000+ on a new set.  I can see why the industry is trying to set a high bar and wow customers.  I'm not sure it is going to work.  Like DSLRs I think what people have is good enough.

Having said that TV has a bad history of using substandard media and being careless with it.  I was amazed to learn early episodes of Dr. Who were recorded on tape AND original tapes were recycled and taped over as a cost savings measure.  There is a current world wide search going on for the lost episodes.

 

Quote

Eleven Doctor Who episodes were discovered (nine of which have not been seen for 46 years) by Philip Morris, director of Television International Enterprises Archive, by tracking records of tape shipments made by the BBC to Africa for transmission. Morris says, “The tapes had been left gathering dust in a store room at a television relay station in Nigeria."

http://www.bbcamerica.com/anglophenia/2013/10/lost-doctor-who-episodes-from-the-60s-now-available-on-itunes

Anyone who knows the history of TV and has actually watched a couple of videos detailing Netflix's workflow and archiving would not reach the conclusion they are somehow thoughtless, ignorant, or careless.  Netflix doesn't run the UltraHD Alliance and they don't make TVs nor video cameras.  Given the environment they are working in and the constraints put on them by external forces I don't think whatever compromises they have to make are even worth mentioning considering the history of the industry they operate in.

[gt3rs]

Interesting is that the C700 at 4k 60fps 10 bits 4:2:2 XF-AVC has a data rate of 810 Mbits. 
People complain about the 1Dx II data rate due to the MJPEG that is a dinosaurs and file are soo big for nothing....
I know is not so easy to compare but the 1Dx II would need around 20% more space for roughly a similar quality (800 Mbits 4:2:2 but only 8 bits, using 10 bits jpegs would be 1000 Mbits)

So in pure theory the 1Dx II using XF-AVC 8bits 4:2:2 instead of MJPEG would have a data rate of 640 Mbits instead of 800 Mbits.