Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

IBC '09? There's a new Canon camera to be announced soon (Canon source)

Hrvoje Simic said:
If Canon pulled a serious sensor AND a serious codec and shown to be more practical for certain usages, I'd be very interested for both Canon 2/3" AND Scarlet.
Click to expand...


That's one huge "IF" though. Judging by Canon's motion camera history, that will not happen. They are painfully behind the times when it comes to video and software. Their lenses are a different story.
 
Stuart English said:
You think so - based on which attributes?
Click to expand...

Not sure about which part you were asking... :-)

If you were asking concerning the part about "more broadcast friendly" opinion - that was mostly guesswork based on seen prototypes - with ENG/EFP functionalities in mind, as discussed in ENG/EFP thread.
 
Tom said:
Well that's my point. If you're going to go for a 2/3" camera, why not go with Scarlet? You get RAW, you get 120 - 150fps, etc. There is no way Canon is going to top those specs on a 2/3" camera, IMO. The RAW and high FPS are pure gold, at least for me.
Click to expand...

Scarlet is a no brainer for me. Scarlet features are gold for me also.

I'm just saying that I understand why some TV houses and TV oriented productions might find Canon more interesting solution (in that "if" scenario) in case Scarlet 2/3" doesn't have an adequate out-of-the-box, compact, multiple purposed fast shooting solution (for any possible reason).

Milan Spasic said:
That's one huge "IF" though. Judging by Canon's motion camera history, that will not happen. They are painfully behind the times when it comes to video and software. Their lenses are a different story.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. Huge "IF".
 
xdcam sucks for CC
h264 sucks for CC
redcode is good for CC

can we all agree on that?

if yes, this canon camera interests me so much like a sex puppy when at the same time megan fox lies naked beside her...

i dont know one person who would choose the puppy
 
That is the first time I have ever heard a camera be compared to a sex puppy...hopefully no the last.
 
a camera?? it is a lens man.. canon lens.. can on.. come on.. coming.. do you see the music?? see the music.. there's love in the air
 
Brett Kosmider said:
My workflow involves transcoding H.264 to ProRes... and isn't that what most RED users will do as well? Just sayin...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're joking or not - but I'll assume it was meant in earnest. In that case just know that h264 achieves it's small size by reducing depth and basically cheating the image in brilliant ways. The end result though is that you get what you get and you aren't going to be able to change it much before the image breaks - looks ratty and overly digitized. Even going to Pro Res, you can't get more depth in it, you just have a bigger bucket for you same amount of sand.

Continuing with that analogy... think of this... You have 3 sand buckets filled with sand... the small is h264, the medium is prores, the large is r3d.

The prores one is now empty, you pour in the r3d sand and you have left over sand, so you pick the sand you want to fill the bucket and your bucket is full. Alternatively, if you were to have filled it with the h264 (small) bucket you'll never have as much sand as the bucket can hold.

The sand is color and luma data.
 
Mark Allen said:
I'm not sure if you're joking or not - but I'll assume it was meant in earnest. In that case just know that h264 achieves it's small size by reducing depth and basically cheating the image in brilliant ways. The end result though is that you get what you get and you aren't going to be able to change it much before the image breaks - looks ratty and overly digitized. Even going to Pro Res, you can't get more depth in it, you just have a bigger bucket for you same amount of sand.

Continuing with that analogy... think of this... You have 3 sand buckets filled with sand... the small is h264, the medium is prores, the large is r3d.

The prores one is now empty, you pour in the r3d sand and you have left over sand, so you pick the sand you want to fill the bucket and your bucket is full. Alternatively, if you were to have filled it with the h264 (small) bucket you'll never have as much sand as the bucket can hold.

The sand is color and luma data.
Click to expand...

Mark, I get your analogy. Maybe latitude is the word youre looking for. I get that; bit depth, et al. Im curious to see if Scarlet lives up to the hype but for now Im in the Canon 5D2/7D camp because thats what I can afford. 5D2 footage goes "up" to ProRes to preserve any detail, RED needs to "go down" to ProRes to edit. What I meant was, surely you dont CC H264 footage natively, you go into ProRes and you have some room to push and pull without additional H264 artifacting (more than acquisition). But youre right, you get what you pay for, but its doin me just fine in the meantime.
 
Brett Kosmider said:
...you go into ProRes and you have some room to push and pull without additional H264 artifacting (more than acquisition). But youre right, you get what you pay for, but its doin me just fine in the meantime.
Click to expand...

The problem I found with the 5D is when you come to "push and pull", there's not much there. I agree these cams are good value though and often create a much better end product than using a lens adapter.
 
Jannard said:
Ha. Two years ago we were a scam and now "Canon is not afraid of us." Sounds like we have come a long way in a short period of time.

I'm very happy that RED has in any small way helped Canon to "see the light". We welcome anything they bring to the market that is good for the industry. Now... get rid of H.264.

We have a stable of unannounced features. Glad we started to clam up recently.

Jim
Click to expand...

Yes! Announcing them at IBC, or waiting for Canon's announcement first? :)
 
Brett Kosmider said:
What I meant was, surely you dont CC H264 footage natively, you go into ProRes and you have some room to push and pull without additional H264 artifacting (more than acquisition).
Click to expand...

Mmmm.... no. Making a prores copy of the H264 original will reduce the quality, not enhance it.

You will get better results if you directly correct the H264 original, or an fully uncompressed copy of it.
 
Eki Halkka said:
Mmmm.... no. Making a prores copy of the H264 original will reduce the quality, not enhance it.

You will get better results if you directly correct the H264 original
Click to expand...
don't think so.. a lossless codec is always better for further generations than a lossy even if native

yet.. all 5d editors are doing it so
 
Roberto B said:
don't think so.. a lossless codec is always better for further generations than a lossy even if native
Click to expand...

Prores isn't lossless, far from it. While making prores copy is an unnecessary, lossy "further generation", there's no "further generation" if you directly process the original file, as it's by definition "the original".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProRes_422
 
Eki Halkka said:
Prores isn't lossless, far from it. While making prores copy is an unnecessary, lossy "further generation", there's no "further generation" if you directly process the original file, as it's by definition "the original".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProRes_422
Click to expand...
okay.. not a mac user.. me was thinking on cineform for cc/grading
though mac users are used to transcode to prores w/ better results than the "original" by definition
 
so.. are you infering h264 is better lossless codec than prores or cineform?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top