What REALLY prompted Canon suddenly to get their act together with video?

[Super8]

12 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 

Honestly after hearing what you've had to say about the URSA, I am pretty disappointed. I've heard a lot of people say the URSA comes close to an Alexa but it sounds like that was all hype. 

 

Don't be disappointed with the URSA.  Footage can be color corrected to look really really good.  This is true with all cameras. 

If you could see what I'm correcting right now from the BMP6K it would blow your mind.

[thebrothersthre3]

3 minutes ago, Super8 said:

The Canon 1DX III would be the better comparison to the URSA Mini Pro 4.6 G2

The 1DX III is still miles ahead of anything BM offers.   Everyone can disagree with my comments about which cameras are easier to color grade but look at the footage that Canon produces and look at Blackmagic footage. 

Since we are talking about Canon in this thread and people are dogging Canon for GREAT specs, saying the cripple hammers is coming.  All that said that might want to look at image quality and color next time they think about buying or renting a camera for that next gig or client. 

At the end of the day no one care what you shot your footage with they just care how it looks and what you created. 

The 1DX MK3 form factor is different though. DSLR body which makes for weird rigging, no internal ND's. I wish Canon had that sensor/specs in a cine body at that price point. 

The 1DX MK3, C500 MK2, C300 MK3, and the soon to come Canon R5 all have great specs though. The work I do is really low end though and Canon doesn't offer anything in a price range that makes sense for me. The EOS R is affordable but it just would really be a step down in many ways even if the color science is much better. 

5 minutes ago, Super8 said:

Don't be disappointed with the URSA.  Footage can be color corrected to look really really good.  This is true with all cameras. 

If you could see what I'm correcting right now from the BMP6K it would blow your mind.

Thats good to hear. I have to work on my color correction skills.

[Super8]

17 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

 

Thats good to hear. I have to work on my color correction skills.

Get Davinci Resolve that came with your Ursa and use the scopes to check your footage. 

[SteveV4D]

3 hours ago, Super8 said:

 

The 1DX III is still miles ahead of anything BM offers.   Everyone can disagree with my comments about which cameras are easier to color grade but look at the footage that Canon produces and look at Blackmagic footage.

Since we are talking about Canon in this thread and people are dogging Canon for GREAT specs, saying the cripple hammers is coming.  All that said that might want to look at image quality and color next time they think about buying or renting a camera for that next gig or client. 

At the end of the day no one care what you shot your footage with they just care how it looks and what you created. 

 

 

 

But which Canon camera? I've worked with 8 bit Canon footage from various versions of the 5D, 6D and 7D over the last decade and the footage was a terrible experience to grade compared to my experience with BRAW from the Pocket.  Sure, when you pay money for their higher end cameras, you get the sort of files that make colour grading easier.  But does my Pocket 4K or 6K sit in the same level as a Canon C500 or 1DX III.  Of course not.  It's not in ARRI territory either.  Its foolish even to compare them in my opinion.

I do look at image quality and colour,  just as any other buyer of camera.  I chose the Pocket 4K.  I will doubtless choose the 6K too.  I won't be choosing the R5.  I am certainly intrigued by its developments and welcome Canon taking their lower end cameras more seriously, but it's not for me.

As you say, no one cares what you shoot your footage with.  They care about what you created.  I pick the camera that is in my budget, has features I need and like and an image quality and colour I can work with.  For those reasons, I chose the Pocket.  Others on this forum chose the URSA.  In my opinion they made great choices.  Whether Canon colour is easier to grade with certain models and with the R5 is frankly besides the point.  If I like Blackmagic colours, then I'm not fighting their colour science, I'm embracing it.  That will always make grading easier.  Why would I want an image I am working with to look like Canon, when I am not always a fan of the Canon image.  Aside from great skin tones, which I do like, their colours often don't do much for me.  And your examples have only proved that point to me.  

I'm sure we can all dig around on the internet to find videos to support our points of view.  But frankly it's an argument that still is as many have said, including you at one point, very much subjective.

 

[IronFilm]

6 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Well the C500 mk2 is 16,000 while the Ursa G2 is 6,000, a little more than twice the price. 

You can find used Ursa Mini pro 4.6k (with BRAW) for around $3500 these days though. In that price range the C200 is the competitor not the C500.  The C200 RAW files are big though and it has no intermediate 10 bit codec and less dynamic range. The C200 also doesn't have some pro features like time code. It also goes for more used, usually $4500 upwards. 

Cheapest C200 on eBay that has sold was US$4K
There is a local URSA Mini 4.6K I've been considering which is for sale for US$1.75
That puts it at closer to C100mk2 prices! (US$1.5K)
I know which I'd prefer

[thebrothersthre3]

8 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Cheapest C200 on eBay that has sold was US$4K
There is a local URSA Mini 4.6K I've been considering which is for sale for US$1.75
That puts it at closer to C100mk2 prices! (US$1.5K)
I know which I'd prefer

The Ursa’s that go cheaper usually seem to be PL which is a bit crippling if you are trying to keep things cheap. That said it’s still a high cost/performance ratio. It’s really nice to have Prores 422 at different resolutions with high dynamic range 

[IronFilm]

The one I'm considering is an EF version

[thebrothersthre3]

11 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

The one I'm considering is an EF version

Thats a good deal man. Mine was $1600 but its PL and the rear SDI's are dead. Still got the front one though so no biggie. 

[Super8]

6 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

But which Canon camera? I've worked with 8 bit Canon footage from various versions of the 5D, 6D and 7D over the last decade and the footage was a terrible experience to grade compared to my experience with BRAW from the Pocket. 

 

Did you just compare the 5D, 6d and 7D to BRAW from the pocket?  I'm actually speechless and don't know what to say.

 

[Super8]

6 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

 But does my Pocket 4K or 6K sit in the same level as a Canon C500 or 1DX III.  Of course not.  It's not in ARRI territory either.  Its foolish even to compare them in my opinion.

Why is it foolish to compare the Pocket6K to the Canon 1DX III for color quality?  

It sounds like you will ignore color comparison of the  1DX III and call out specs and features.   You do have a trade off between the two. This makes the R5 specs even more a game changer along with Canon color.  

Here's the 1DX III color again. This is what we'll get with the R5.  And for the record Canon color is very close to ARRI and it's clean balanced color. 

If you look at the footage below and look at he color you can see that you can do anything with that color. You can move it around, bleach it, pull it, take it down, crush it and give it any look you want.

Let's remember with great color you have great color depth. Great color depth takes you to cinema quality world. 

 

[Super8]

7 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

If I like Blackmagic colours, then I'm not fighting their colour science, I'm embracing it.  That will always make grading easier.  Why would I want an image I am working with to look like Canon, when I am not always a fan of the Canon image. 

You really don't understand color science, color grading and you clearly don't understand the final video clips that you see on You Tube.  You do understand that unless someone says "straight out of camera" then you have some what graded footage that you're looking at.  Anyone can throw a LUT on footage and you don't seem to know the difference.  

My experience with the P6K over the last 7 months, two big projects and massive IR pollution, is that ALL Black Magic footage has massive built in color science that's almost as bad as Sony's mirror-less line up.

Based on this thread all comments about BM and it's cine line up have said they're color science cannot compare to Canon's 1DX III and never to the much higher priced C500. 

If you don't agree with my comment about ARRI and Canon being easier to grade or that that's a fact or subjective, the one thing that seems a given is that Canon has superior color science over Black Magic. 

 

[SteveV4D]

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

Did you just compare the 5D, 6d and 7D to BRAW from the pocket?  I'm actually speechless and don't know what to say.

 

If only, see above.

[SteveV4D]

1 hour ago, Super8 said:

Why is it foolish to compare the Pocket6K to the Canon 1DX III for color quality?  

 

 

Because I would expect better results from a camera that costs a whole lot more than the Pocket.  All these comparison videos are very nice to watch, but apart from points scoring, they are worthless to me, unless I was seriously thinking of buying a camera that costs 3 times as much.  

[SteveV4D]

2 hours ago, Super8 said:

 

My experience with the P6K over the last 7 months, two big projects and massive IR pollution, is that ALL Black Magic footage has massive built in color science that's almost as bad as Sony's mirror-less line up.

If you don't agree with my comment about ARRI and Canon being easier to grade or that that's a fact or subjective, the one thing that seems a given is that Canon has superior color science over Black Magic. 

 

I'm not a colourist.  But I disagree from working with many different cameras that Blackmagic is on the same level as Sony.  That is your opinion, and not fact.

And as for Canon, I will not argue against that their top cameras are better to grade than Blackmagic.  I have no experience with such models, so can not offer an opinion.  But I have worked with Canon colours in lower models and I would say my experience grading them is inferior to my work with Blackmagic.  But then I'm sure you know that working with an image isn't just about its colour science; it's about the codec, the dynamic range, the bit rate and a whole lot of other things.  

In the end, I still prefer Blackmagic colours to Canon, straight out of the camera.  Those samples you searched the internet for to prove your point are nice, but I still prefer the colour I see in Blackmagic.  Whether one is better to grade straight out is besides the point for me.  I don't care whether colour from the 1DX Mark III is comparable to ARRI.  I'm not likely to be buying either of them.  If this notion makes you happy, good. If you feel Canon colour science is 2nd to ARRI, good.  In the end, I just work with what I got, and I'm happy with that. 😄

[Super8]

19 minutes ago, SteveV4D said:

I'm not a colourist.  But I disagree from working with many different cameras that Blackmagic is on the same level as Sony.  That is your opinion, and not fact.

And as for Canon, I will not argue against that their top cameras are better to grade than Blackmagic.  I have no experience with such models, so can not offer an opinion.  But I have worked with Canon colours in lower models and I would say my experience grading them is inferior to my work with Blackmagic.  But then working with an image isn't just about its colour science; it's about the codec, the dynamic range, the bit rate and a whole lot of other things.  

In the end, I still prefer Blackmagic colours to Canon, straight out of the camera.  Your samples are nice, but I still prefer the colour I see in Blackmagic.  Whether one is better to grade straight out is besides the point for me.  I don't care whether colour from the 1DX Mark III is comparable to ARRI.  I'm not likely to be buying either of them.  If this notion makes you happy, good. If you feel Canon colour science is 2nd to ARRI, good.  In the end, I just work with what I got, and I'm happy with that. 😄

Yes we work with what we have. No one said sell your BM camera.

But as a person that cares enough to spread some knowledge or want to learn new information, we all should learn and help each other. 

A little information that's straight out of Hollywood blockbuster team that made Deep Impact.  Here are a set of screen captures that show great color.  Now my take on the look of this film is it's has a classic color look that driven from scene to scene.  You have scenes that are set up to give a feel or emotion.  The goal to have great color has not changed.  You always strive to capture accurate color.  Where you take it and what you make it up to you.

These captures are for all the people that replied and said "they didn't need accurate color" and "who's to say what accurate color is?" 

 

 

 

 

[SteveV4D]

4 minutes ago, Super8 said:

Yes we work with what we have. No one said sell your BM camera.

But as a person that cares enough to spread some knowledge or want to learn new information, we all should learn and help each other. 

A little information that's straight out of Hollywood blockbuster team that made Deep Impact.  Here are a set of screen captures that show great color.  Now my take on the look of this film is it's has a classic color look that driven from scene to scene.  You have scenes that are set up to give a feel or emotion.  The goal to have great color has not changed.  You always strive to capture accurate color.  Where you take it and what you make it up to you.

These captures are for all the people that replied and said "they didn't need accurate color" and "who's to say what accurate color is?" 

I'm not sure arguing your point of view counts the same as sharing your knowledge.  If enlightening others including me is your goal, you need to rethink your strategy

I never argued that accurate colour isn't important.  I personally feel Nikons colours are more accurate to real life than Canon, though also feel that Canon look is more pleasing to the eye than Nikon.  Yes, I did ask what accurate colour is?  But those screen shots no more prove or disprove that.  Some shots to me look good to me, 1 looked a bit off. But maybe that's my own eyes.  Or my phone.  How do we prove accurate colour when we all have different eyes, different devices to view the colour and a preference for colour that can cloud our judgement on what is and isn't accurate?

To be honest I'm not sure whether you're arguing which colour science is easier to grade or which is more accurate straight out.  Or both.  You seem to swing your argument to whatever you feel gives you weight to your opinion on Canon.

If Canons colours are superior to others for being accurate straight out, what's your thoughts on the below tests of camera models for accurate colour reproduction.

https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/

I would have thought all Canon cameras would be top, but no, and it also seems not all Canon cameras are equal for accurate colour reproduction.  Of course this test is contested by some on the comments section.  By Canon users naturally 😄  But then it seems accurate colour reproduction is subjective.

[Django]

Deep Impact is a 90s flick, it was shot on 35mm film with an ARRIFLEX. Strange example to bring up in a CS discussion about digital cinema.

I wanna say CS isn't an issue in Hollywood. They shoot the flattest log or RAW footage and then send it to a pro colourist who will dial it in. 

Recent Canon Cine Log tries to copy ARRI's Log C. Sony FX/FS have Venice CS. S1H/EVA1 I'd assume aim towards VariCam CS.

Those are the industry standard. On most consumer cameras, picture profiles & log follow other standards.

One of the reasons why cine cams rule imo is they can load custom LUTs and you can also paint in camera.

Very practical when you're going after a specific look and don't have time/budget to grade log/RAW footage.

[Super8]

2 hours ago, Django said:

Deep Impact is a 90s flick, it was shot on 35mm film with an ARRIFLEX. Strange example to bring up in a CS discussion about digital cinema.

I wanna say CS isn't an issue in Hollywood. They shoot the flattest log or RAW footage and then send it to a pro colourist who will dial it in. 

Recent Canon Cine Log tries to copy ARRI's Log C. Sony FX/FS have Venice CS. S1H/EVA1 I'd assume aim towards VariCam CS.

Those are the industry standard. On most consumer cameras, picture profiles & log follow other standards.

One of the reasons why cine cams rule imo is they can load custom LUTs and you can also paint in camera.

Very practical when you're going after a specific look and don't have time/budget to grade log/RAW footage.

My CS discussion is based on Canon and this thread is about the R5.  People are coming down hard on the R5 specs and claiming the "cripple hammer is coming".  I brought up Canon color science because it's relevant and not on the spec sheet.

Out of this discussion we have BMP6k and Ursa Mini Pro being talked about as not as good as Canon because of the cost of the camera.

I used Deep Impact because as a case study because it showed great color all around.  This is what we all strive for except for the ones that said they didn't need accurate color that they embraced what the BMP4K gave them.  

People have become blinded by the brand they bought into and not the craft that they create with.

[zerocool22]

Just now, Super8 said:

 

People have become blinded by the brand they bought into and not the craft that they create with.

Not at all. Owned 550D, 5D III, C100, C300, GH3, GH4, a7S, A7S II, bmcc 2.5k, ursa mini pro, pocket 4K, pocket 6K (and shot with FS5, FS7, fs700, Arri amira, alexa mini lf, sony venice, F55, ...)

All camera's have their strenghts and weaknesses. One has better color out of the box, one is easier to grade, one has slowmo, one is too light, one is too heavy, ...)

[Super8]

9 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

How do we prove accurate colour when we all have different eyes, different devices to view the colour and a preference for colour that can cloud our judgement on what is and isn't accurate?

To be honest I'm not sure whether you're arguing which colour science is easier to grade or which is more accurate straight out.  Or both.  You seem to swing your argument to whatever you feel gives you weight to your opinion on Canon.

 

I'm also not getting into the debate about accurate color and how we prove it.  You want to play strawman on this thread then go for it.

You're kinda making yourself look foolish.  Andrew and EOS HD color profiles is based on improving color science from multiple camera manufacturers.

What is EOSHD Pro Color?

"EOSHD Pro Color improves upon a range of issues with Sony’s default colour science. Your straight-out-of-camera footage will get a professional cinematic treatment."

Your "How do we prove accurate colour when we all have different eyes, " comment is an insult all around.   I know you didn't mean it that way and that your playing the straawman but it's an insult to everyone on the EOS. You can't make a blanket statement about color and color science that let's everyone become lazy and doesn't hold cameras to a higher standard.  "

Oh, don't worry, don't color grade that footage because we all have different eyes and someone will like it".