Thread: Canon C500 Mark II

Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 123
  1. #81  
    Senior Member Satsuki Murashige's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Doublin View Post
    And there-in lies my dilemma. I've been mostly shooting with Canons for the last 10 years, and to me the Canon look is extremely prevalent in every Canon I've used. Colors look great, but skintones push heavily towards magenta which is more obvious in certain lighting conditions than others. And frankly, there is a certain look to the image that screams "Canon" to me.
    I believe it was Ron Dexter, ASC who used to say that you never had to accept the manufacturer’s equipment as-is. He would chop up and rebuild his newly-bought equipment to suit his needs, inventing and improving things along the way. Here’s his website: https://rondexter.com/

    I think there’s a lesson to be learned there. Though many of us these days are forced into using a particular camera system due to budget, politics, or just simple ergonomic necessity, we don’t also need to accept the camera manufacturer’s color science. Most high end cameras can accept 3D LUTs and CDL corrections or custom Looks and apply them over the camera’s native Log gamma and color space. Something as simple as balancing magenta skin tones or improving highlight roll-off can easily be addressed under the hood in a way that is basically invisible on set. If that sounds good to you, it may be worth looking into. For myself, making my own LUTs and Looks have helped me avoid the dreaded ‘Sony look’ on my F5, and I have also used this method on Red and Alexa cameras over the years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by Satsuki Murashige View Post
    I believe it was Ron Dexter, ASC who used to say that you never had to accept the manufacturer’s equipment as-is. He would chop up and rebuild his newly-bought equipment to suit his needs, inventing and improving things along the way. Here’s his website: https://rondexter.com/

    I think there’s a lesson to be learned there. Though many of us these days are forced into using a particular camera system due to budget, politics, or just simple ergonomic necessity, we don’t also need to accept the camera manufacturer’s color science. Most high end cameras can accept 3D LUTs and CDL corrections or custom Looks and apply them over the camera’s native Log gamma and color space. Something as simple as balancing magenta skin tones or improving highlight roll-off can easily be addressed under the hood in a way that is basically invisible on set. If that sounds good to you, it may be worth looking into. For myself, making my own LUTs and Looks have helped me avoid the dreaded ‘Sony look’ on my F5, and I have also used this method on Red and Alexa cameras over the years.
    Very true. I've not really jumped into the deep internal menus of my Canons. I tried with my original C300 but they were rather confusing and the amount of alteration I could do to the image seemed limited. My Red Dragon was pretty intuitive in those regards and allowed me to tune the image rather easily. I've not yet tried with my C200. Maybe I'll mess around with that this weekend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #83  
    Member Rikki Rockett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Santa Clarita, CA
    Posts
    78
    I've been to a couple of the seminars for the C-500 II. As a RED Scarlet W user, I didn't want to like this camera. However, it is so easy to use. I'm over people thinking that if it's easy it must not be pro. The gap is closing in so many ways. As a run and gunner, it's a serious consideration!



    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Doublin View Post
    Yeah, I know what you mean. When I kept the ISO at around 640, the Dragon just shined with a specific texture that looked so cinematic to me. And the colors just looked so damned good. And there-in lies my dilemma. I've been mostly shooting with Canons for the last 10 years, and to me the Canon look is extremely prevalent in every Canon I've used. Colors look great, but skintones push heavily towards magenta which is more obvious in certain lighting conditions than others. And frankly, there is a certain look to the image that screams "Canon" to me. It's not a bad thing, it just seems like I work a little harder to create a "cinematic" image to me whereas with that Dragon (with the right settings), I would just look at the monitor and think, "Damn. That looks like a friggin' movie right there." I realize the term "cinematic" is a hotly debated, unscientific term and means different things to different people. To me, when I look at an Alexa image or a Red image, I think "movie". When I look at a Canon image I think, documentary or corporate/editorial video. Under a microscopic, I know this all has to do with the usual variables of highlight rolloff, latitude, noise, bitrate, color fidelity, chroma subsampling, yada yada yada. To keep it simple, most people just say "cinematic" or that image has "mojo".

    I just got off the phone with my tax attorney and I'm being advised that if I have a big camera purchase to make soon, then I need to make it in the next 5 weeks because I'm gonna really need that write-off this year. My original plan was to just wait, rent both of the C500 II and the Gemini, do my own shoot off, and make an educated decision from that experience. Now I'm calculating how much waiting will cost me in spent tax dollars. I may have to just make a decision without a test, which sucks.

    I wish there was more C500 II stuff out there to look at. The most promising thing on the internet is just this, which doesn't really show me a ton. It looks like a really, really nice Canon image to me, but with shallower depth of field. Though, to be fair, I'm not sure a Gemini in this scenario would look vastly superior.

    Scarlet-W
    #006053


    Rikki Rockett
    Slave To The Rhythm Productions, Inc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by Rikki Rockett View Post
    I've been to a couple of the seminars for the C-500 II. As a RED Scarlet W user, I didn't want to like this camera. However, it is so easy to use. I'm over people thinking that if it's easy it must not be pro. The gap is closing in so many ways. As a run and gunner, it's a serious consideration!
    I think you’re right about the gap closing, and this current generation of cameras might be the one that does it. That video I posted earlier in this thread shot by the Gemini (the one I really liked which was making me consider the Gemini as my next purchase), well it turns out there is a companion video to it, shot by the Blackmagic Pocket 6k. I know this thread is about the C500 II but what these two videos do show is how close these cameras are getting and that you can achieve any look you want when you are capturing enough data. I think I still prefer the Gemini here, but it’s so close, I’m not sure one image is worth $20k more than the other, lol.






    I’m starting to think the C500 II might be the route I decide to go. I do like that it will be a relevant camera for quite sometime, which I don’t know if I can say for the Gemini. Red really needs to make a camera that has internal ND’s and is more power efficient if they want to stay relevant. They need to make an out-of-the-box system that is ready to shoot, is lightweight and takes smaller batteries. They need to make a camera that goes up against the C500 II and the FX9.

    The only things I don’t currently like about the C500 II are the lack of full frame over-cranking beyond 60p and no interval recording (so strange they left that out, even the C200 has it).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #85  
    I was talking to a well known DP of a Showtime documentary last month about the C500 II and he mentioned that he wished it had a 4k 4:4:4 XF-AVC option like the C300 II does. Does anyone know what the bitrate is of 4k 10 bit 444 XF-AVC? I'm guessing it must be close to Canon Raw Light or Canon would have stuck it on there. I do wish it was included because a lot of clients want the best quality but they also don't want to deal with Raw. It'd have been nice to have a 444 compressed option.

    And I'm surprised we haven't seen any more C500 II sample videos released. The camera ships in the next few weeks and there really isn't a ton of stuff out there. I imagine come January we'll have plenty, I just figured we'd have seen some more brand sponsored short films/footage put out there by now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #86  
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    47
    It is the same sensor as C700 FF, so the files will look almost identical. At least after web compression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #87  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,465
    The image quality is slightly better than the C700 due to new processing hardware mainly. The firmware still isn't finalized, about 2/3rds the menus are still greyed out as of last week.

    I've seen the camera 3 times now. It is safely the best digital cinema offering from Canon to date. And that's a good thing.

    One thing you'll discover quickly, and I'm sure many YouTube reviews are immenent. You'll be looking at 512GB CFexpress cards and up for this camera to record 5.9K Cinema RAW Lite, more of what that memory landscape actually represents and is a moderate tech limitation. Interestingly most of the good options are 2020 product releases on that front.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #88  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    899
    Canon c500 mk2 does not look good here versus FX9, Venice .
    https://youtu.be/2-kYtjH3eEs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #89  
    Not fair as they don't shoot the DR test in raw in the C500 II

    Quote Originally Posted by Jiri Vrozina View Post
    Canon c500 mk2 does not look good here versus FX9, Venice .
    https://youtu.be/2-kYtjH3eEs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #90  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by Arturo Sánchez View Post
    Not fair as they don't shoot the DR test in raw in the C500 II
    Li feis not fair ��
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts