Has Cinema5D lost all credibilty?

[EthanAlexander]

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/

[jcs]

I think it's good to have options, and for now raw is good for some applications since the cameras supplying raw don't currently have sufficient CPU power and sensors to provide better quality in camera. It's manufacturers squeezing every last bit out of their hardware, until the next upgrade cycle as we move closer to raw going obsolete (who shoots uncompressed RGB anymore?). That's business...

I can tell you that since acquiring a C300 II & 1DX II, we've had no desire or need to upgrade our top cameras (something like an A7S III with DPAF-like AF would be a useful addition, otherwise we're good with equipment: no desire even for an ARRI Amira or Mini (no DPAF)).

If the C200 had 10-bit, it might make sense to sell the C300 II to get a smaller, lighter camera with a better screen and the same image quality (zero need or desire to use C200 raw, which appears to be the sales message of the Cinema5D post).

[Emanuel]

@jcs John as former chap from there where we met for 1st time I guess, what's your currently opinion on cinema5d BTW? I'd love to hear it...

[elgabogomez]

"Cinema camera" is nowadays two different things, 1, for a proyect where you want the end product to be proyected on a cinema screen. (Where we are talking dcp and p3 color gamut) or 2, an aspirational label to believe you are doing "better" or more professional job than with "lesser" cameras. On both instances I can see why raw is desirable. 

[jcs]

20 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

@jcs John as former chap from there where we met for 1st time I guess, what's your currently opinion on cinema5d BTW? I'd love to hear it...

I was a moderator, as was @squig. I think many of us left when the forum was transferred to Planet5D.

They appear to be doing whatever it takes to operate as a profitable business. It feels a lot like NoFilmSchool now, more commercial, promoting products in various ways. The article Ethan referenced does feel like an advertorial for Canon and C200. When folks shoot a lot of content and don't want a home/office filled with piles of hard drives (and associated expense), raw is not a viable option.

On an emotional metaphorical level, it feels like Canon is selling the C200 and raw like a gas guzzling truck, and promotes it based solely on it's ability to haul a payload. Ignoring that there are more efficient engine technologies, such as electric: 100% torque at 0 RPM baby! 

I think Canon may have been motivated to offer raw on the C200 because of ML Raw on the 5D3. People may buy a raw camera, and after a while might realize RAW really stands for Really Awful Workflow (mostly due to copy time & storage space: editing raw directly isn't a big deal anymore (GPUs)).

[HockeyFan12]

37 minutes ago, elgabogomez said:

"Cinema camera" is nowadays two different things, 1, for a proyect where you want the end product to be proyected on a cinema screen. (Where we are talking dcp and p3 color gamut) or 2, an aspirational label to believe you are doing "better" or more professional job than with "lesser" cameras. On both instances I can see why raw is desirable. 

I suppose that's true. The wide gamut thing isn't true only for theaters, but also Netflix's 4k spec. Some Netflix shows are shot on raw, even though you wouldn't think they'd be that high end.

It's a weird ecosystem that's split roughly between those wildly different audiences but they share the same needs. On the very high end a few features can easily afford to shot raw (Skyfall shot raw, many blockbusters since have, features shot on Red or F65 are all raw) and they want the extra flexibility to get the last little bit out of the image even if it's like a 0.1% difference the money is there so who cares. On the very low end, almost anyone can afford to shoot raw because the only infrustrature they need is a decently fast computer and they want the extra flexibility because they're mostly very inexperienced first-time buyers. In the middle range (network tv, Netflix, standard seven or eight figure features, most ads) the vast vast majority of cameras are shooting prores. 1080p or 2k, even. I think that's why the Alexa blew up so fast. At that level, workflows are expensive, but money isn't unlimited. 

So the article is sort of misleading but also sort of mostly true... raw is great if you screw up white balance. And that's harder to fix otherwise. 

There is a stench of marketing fluff there, but everyone has their angle. They're pushing affiliate links at most, I don't think they're shilling for Canon explicitly.

Red has been using the same technique to market to rich amateurs and quirky pros. It's a weird angle but it's not wrong.

[Emanuel]

2 minutes ago, jcs said:

I was a moderator, as was @squig. I think many of us left when the forum was transferred to Planet5D.

 

Indeed. They did a bigger leap, just not exactly forward in order to keep the regulars there as myself for example.

2 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I suppose that's true. The wide gamut thing isn't true only for theaters, but also Netflix's 4k spec. Some Netflix shows are shot on raw, even though you wouldn't think they'd be that high end.

 

Why not? Netflix is currently the most successful major out there...

[HockeyFan12]

1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

Indeed. They did a bigger leap, just not exactly forward in order to keep the regulars there as myself for example.

Why not? Netflix is currently the most successful major out there...

The budgets aren't that high for their original series. Higher than most network tv, sure, but not Avengers level. 

But you're right. If any network can afford to shoot raw that network would be Netflix.

[Emanuel]

2 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

The budgets aren't that high for their original series. Higher than most network tv, sure, but not Avengers level.

Because there's a new distribution model nowadays based in your personal display, no matter the size of it (resolution matters... : D).

[Andrew Reid]

CInema5D lost more credibility with the forum sale to Planet5D and the GH5 'unusable' test than with this particularly piece of clickbait.

But what will really bury Cinema5D is the lack of focus on enthusiasts, it's almost all pro stuff on there. I'm glad, less competition for me.

[HockeyFan12]

6 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Because there's a new distribution model nowadays based in your personal display, no matter the size of it (resolution matters... : D).

I guess that's true. I find Netflix requirements strange (the F55 raw looks worse to my eye than "4k" Alexa prores, which Amazon and YouTube will accept, although both are good) but jumping early on the 4k HDR bandwagon is a big part of their business model and makes sense. Even if compression kills it now, in ten years they'll have a huge library they can re-encode. 

I do think they're pretty much the only "mid range" company that has a large portion of their content originating in raw. The rest is mostly limited to the very high end and one-man-bands.

[EthanAlexander]

57 minutes ago, elgabogomez said:

On both instances I can see why raw is desirable. 

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.

24 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

There is a stench of marketing fluff there, but everyone has their angle. They're pushing affiliate links at most, I don't think they're shilling for Canon explicitly.

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.

30 minutes ago, jcs said:

They appear to be doing whatever it takes to operate as a profitable business. It feels a lot like NoFilmSchool now, more commercial, promoting products in various ways. The article Ethan referenced does feel like an advertorial for Canon and C200. When folks shoot a lot of content and don't want a home/office filled with piles of hard drives (and associated expense), raw is not a viable option.

On an emotional metaphorical level, it feels like Canon is selling the C200 and raw like a gas guzzling truck, and promotes it based solely on it's ability to haul a payload. Ignoring that there are more efficient engine technologies, such as electric: 100% torque at 0 RPM baby!

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.

[cantsin]

The Cinema5D article is indeed an advertorial for the C200 because:

(a) it makes a false binary juxtaposition of Raw vs. DSLR-h264, as if intermediate options (like in-camera high-bitrate 10bit/12bit codecs + Log) didn't exist;
(b) it narrows down the choice of Raw cinema cameras to one between RED and the C200, with the implicit message to the reader that Raw becomes affordable with the C200 - without mentioning Blackmagic or the raw recording options for Sony FS5/7 (let alone MagicLantern...) even once.
(c) leaves out the information that so far, traditional Raw image manipulation controls (such as WB adjustment in post) aren't available for the C200's proprietary Raw codec. (In Resolve, which officially supports C200 Raw with version 14, the Raw tab isn't available for C200 Raw footage.) 

 

[jonpais]

Although he posted a disclaimer saying he used to be a spokesperson for Sachtler, a recent review by Nino of one of their tripods sounded so much like a paid endorsement that I lost all interest in the site after that. 

[OliKMIA]

The problem with all online publication is the business model. Free website must rely on some sort of  advertising and affiliates link to pay the bills (web hosting, IT, writers, etc.). I don't know much about Cinema5D but if you don't pay a dime to visit the website what do you expect?

 

[tugela]

You can only lose something if you had it in the first place.....

[IronFilm]

Cinema5D lost me as a reader a long long time ago. 

I much more prefer sites such as:
https://www.redsharknews.com/
http://www.newsshooter.com/

Plus of course EOSHD!

[PannySVHS]

 

@IronFilm, Hey man, aren´t you from New Zealand? Asking, because my mates and me met a cool director from NZ. He has a beard just like you. Are you in Berln right now?:)

You and I talked before with eachother on here, about that kewl Sony F3. So don´t get scared by my Toshiro Mifune back and neck when

I am asking you this question:)

 

Cineama5D, I used to get them mixed up with EOSHD because of the Canon reference. But I was always looking for EOSHD, of course.

It must have been about six years ago. So I should be forgiven, even more when only just looking for that cool EOSHD articles:)

First provocation, than honey spilling. What a low life move, I should go to Cinema5D and apologize:)

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

@IronFilm, Hey man, aren´t you from New Zealand? Asking, because my mates and me met a cool director from NZ. He has a beard just like you. Are you in Berln right now?:)

Yup! I'm a kiwi, thus my domain name has the ".co.nz" at the end in my signature: http://ironfilm.co.nz/

Sadly not in Berlin :-( Would like to visit one day in the distant future! (I'm part German myself)

[salim]

as a newbie to video (and a long-time photographer) I've been following many sites and been reading through them. Cinema5D's material are not that useful and declining'. 

1 - there is very little depth to their posts. It's basically content marketing. 

2 - there is very little reviews of products for the enthusiast (as @Andrew Reid said). 

for an enthusiasts I find far better stuff on youtube by:
DSLR Video shooter: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMmA0XxraDP7ZVbv4eY3Omg

Max Yurevy: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIgQksZ_4IvQ_VAqBWW81bg

iphoneDO: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvkODZ-I4tsdP2Qopov0jrA

 

just as a few examples.