What is the definition of a "cinema" camera?

[conurus]

Is there a standard definition of what constitutes a "cinema" camera? Would anything with a comparative large sensor (say, 1" or larger), with RAW (internal or external), or a low-compression codec suited for post (e.g. MJPEG, ProRes) count as a "cinema" camera?

[Raafi Rivero]

Basically, yes. Super 35mm sensor or larger, professional codec (usually RAW, but if not a high-bitrate codec), minimum 10-bit processing but 12-bit preferred, professional lens mount (PL or EF).

[cantsin]

Also: a largely unprocessed image without in-camera, baked-in sharpening, denoising and lens geometry correction. If there is no raw recording, there must be late log profile, and at least 10bit (better 12bit) color depth.

Sound recording is off-camera, so in-camera sound recording might be missing or just rudimentary for reference tracks.

The sensor doesn't need to be s35mm though, there have been.s16mm cinema cameras, too, both analog and digital.

There must be support for rigging, I.e. external power and external field monitoring.

[tugela]

There is no definition of a cinema camera, it is whatever you want it to be.

Since it is a term without real meaning (a buzz phrase really), it is widely used and abused for a variety of marketing purposes to appeal to a certain sort of user.

[conurus]

Would you say a camera has to be at least broadcast-ready before it would be worthy for the cinema? (Assuming we are really putting the footage on the big screen here.) Or is there no such a relationship?

[Andrew Reid]

1 hour ago, conurus said:

Is there a standard definition of what constitutes a "cinema" camera? Would anything with a comparative large sensor (say, 1" or larger), with RAW (internal or external), or a low-compression codec suited for post (e.g. MJPEG, ProRes) count as a "cinema" camera?

In the industry, the definition is a lot lighter and more well defined than it is for enthusiasts.

They think in terms of A and B cameras.

Pros would consider Super 35mm as the norm and it'd support cinema lenses via PL mount - a stable, locking mount. XLR audio with phantom power and it would slot into an existing, well defined workflow from acquisition and monitoring right through to editing. MJPEG isn't very well suited to post because it isn't hardware accelerated like RED RAW or ProRes. Playback is choppy. Great image quality though.

For enthusiasts and prosumers the definition of cinema camera would be more along the lines of a GH5 or Sony FS5. It gets looser the lower in price you go.

At the higher-end:

Full frame preferred over 2x crop. Super 35mm acceptable but not as 'cinematic' as full frame - the irony huh!
Codec would be low compression for maximum image quality - H.264 at 100bit+ as the minimum standard
Editing performance a big consideration for 4K, with ProRes LT being ideal for fluid playback and to save on card space
RAW is a great feature and under exploited on the market (only Blackmagic and Magic Lantern for affordable cameras)
Stabilisation is important

In terms of 'cinema' of course 24p and manual controls are the bedrock of the rest. If it hasn't got those, it's a camcorder for home movies, nothing more.

[Fritz Pierre]

5 minutes ago, tugela said:

There is no definition of a cinema camera, it is whatever you want it to be.

Since it is a term without real meaning (a buzz phrase really), it is widely used and abused for a variety of marketing purposes to appeal to a certain sort of user.

Agreed...especially the notion that a Cine cam has a s35 sensor...tell that to all the wonderful filmmakers shooting on the incredible Aaton s16 film camera (Hurt Locker shot in 16 mm for example) on a negative smaller than the dreaded no DR m4/3rd sensor...(insert major sarcasm here)...many ways to shoot on digital cameras though....RAW is one....10,12 or 14 bit....LOG....a Cine Camera is the tool a director chooses to shoot a project....JJ Abrahams chose a tiny little handycam for Cloverfield...because that's how he chose to tell the story

[jcs]

There's no such thing as a cinema camera, other than for marketing and is quite useful for internet forum debates  

Any camera that can be used to shoot a movie and be shown in the cinema is a cinema camera. What does that exclude? Nothing. All cameras are cinema cameras. When everything is something then there is no difference (e.g. what is light without shadow).

From a marketing perspective, cameras which are primarily suited for making traditional Hollywood style movies such as the anything from ARRI, Sony F35/F65, anything from Panavision, and (to a lesser extent) RED, are classic cameras used when people make films primarily focused for cinema release. If one looks at the cameras used for most of the Oscars in recent years (the so-called pinnacle of cinema), it's almost 100% ARRI (film and digital). 'cinematic' also implies looking like film (mostly highlights, lack of digital artifacts, and color response), here again ARRI excels (especially when shooting on actual film!).

Canon markets their Cinema line as cinema cameras (I use a C300 II), and while they can certainly produce very film-like looks (and amazing skin tones), in the classic sense they are not in the same league as ARRI/F65/Panavision (and aren't used nearly as often for major motion pictures (except as B and C cams etc., just like RED, Sony, BM, Panasonic). The same can be said about all other prosumer cameras (including Sony up to and including the F55). Perhaps it's fair to say classic cinema cameras aren't purchased very often by individuals. All (current?) Panavision and ARRI 65 cameras can only be rented. Future cell phones with computational cameras will exceed the capabilities of the latest large sensor ARRI 65...

[Liam]

F900 is a cinema camera with a teeny sensor, f3 is a cinema camera without raw. I feel a little weird calling a c100 a cinema camera, even though it's like part of the name. Yeah, it doesn't matter if it's your own film. A studio might stop you from shooting on a kinemax, because of brand, not specs. These days if a new camera comes out saying it's a cinema camera, it probably just means raw.

[HockeyFan12]

I always thought it was a marketing term to differentiate from ENG cameras or camcorders and didn't mean anything specific. Interesting that it's changing to mean raw capture or a certain lens mount, I did not know that. 

 

[kaylee]

16 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I always thought it was a marketing term to differentiate from ENG cameras or camcorders and didn't mean anything specific. Interesting that it's changing to mean raw capture or a certain lens mount, I did not know that. 

 

thats how i use the term in practice, to differentiate from ENG – but ironically i only need to do that for ppl who dont even know what ENG stands for lol

On 4/27/2017 at 8:28 PM, Liam said:

I feel a little weird calling a c100 a cinema camera, even though it's like part of the name

??????

[HockeyFan12]

48 minutes ago, kaylee said:

??????

That is a difficult market segment, the corporate/wedding/b cam, because there's no positive euphemism for it. That said, the image on the camera itself (with an external recorder especially) is significantly better than many higher end cinema cameras (including for 24/1080p the Red and Scarlet MX, which are a generation behind in sensor architecture and more than that in terms of color processing, and far ahead of the F5 before Sony developed custom film emulation matrices and the custom SLOG3 matrix). I remember first using the C100 and C300 and thinking–wow! This is the first time I can intercut fearlessly with the Alexa. We had an MX on set too and it had a very similar image but harder to match for color and shadow noise texture. But then I spoke to an AC using the C300 on a Super Bowl ad and he HATED it. Why? Difficult to rig a pineapple into a proper cinema camera... The BMCC 2.5k is similar in that regard, punches way above its class for IQ but not for ergonomics. But you use it and the ergonomics are immediately wrong. So what do you say?

I think anyone who has the money to shoot with a proper system knows what they're getting into, while wedding videographers know what they can and can't afford, and the rest of us just want a "cinema" badge on a grown up dSLR. The fact that you only need to explain the difference to people who don't even know why it matters that there is one is very telling! And besides that fact, there have been 7Ds on major features and national ads since they were first released so it's not like either IQ or ergonomics defines anything concretely. 90% of the image is in the lighting and set design anyway.

That said, every network and client has its own rules that must be followed. Netflix banning the Alexa for 4k acquisition is just about the most annoying thing ever.

[webrunner5]

It's pretty simple, if WE can afford it, probably not a Cinema Camera!

[HockeyFan12]

Pretty much, but thankfully the most important part (writing) is free!