Tyler Purcell

I think Canon's development cycle is 3 years. It seems they're always 3 years behind everyone else. Had the C700 been a specialty camera, like an 8k VistaVision size imager... that's a different story. They could have just updated the C300MKII with all the bells and whistles the 4k C700 has.

Looks like the problem material was two days on a particular green screen set. The rest of the shoot was exposed properly. The entire scene being shot with the camera was underexposed, not one particular element. I may have figured out what the problem was though. I was talking with one of my other friends who works at local rental house. He said some rental cameras have home made LUTs on them and perhaps they were looking at the monitor using the wrong LUT. That to me seems more logical because they would have used the scopes built into the monitor and if the HDSDI output was fixing the problem, they may have never noticed it. Funny enough, I was talking with the director about it today at lunch, just for shits and giggles since you guys were so interested. The DP is one of his good friends and likewise, he's a super nice bloke. Anyway, he said they were in a hurry to light and that may have been the issue. He recognizes the problem though, I wound up getting the gig through his recommendation.

Ahh got ya... well that's good to know. Still $30k doesn't get you much.

Did I say documentary? Sorry... it's an industrial. So green screen and built/physical sets on a sound stage. It has people being interviewed and people reading scripted (teleprompter) lines. The material in question was green screen, so the people doing the visual effects, couldn't pull a key from the converted material. They couldn't work with the raw RED files. So I had to do the clean up work in DaVinci, which works natively with RED material. It was kind of a hybrid solution, but it solved the problem and the net result looks great. Of course, when you pre-color 900 shots, it's hard to color match. So once the VFX people are done, I will get the entire project back as sequences and color balance everything.

From my understanding, the industry uses JPEG and Tiff partly due to their higher color gamut and ability to accept higher bit depth images. Currently, the max we can do outside of those two codec's is REC 2020 14 bit. The current RED Code is a 16 bit format with a wider gamut then REC 2020. Remember, JPEG is the standard for DCP playback as well. So it's not JUST a camera codec, it's also the delivery codec. Adobe's CinemaDNG, based on Tiff, isn't quite as efficient and doesn't have the infrastructure jpeg has. So it's been relegated to a 2nd tier codec. With that being said, Tiff does have some benefits, one of them being it's ability to separate each color in a true RGB system. This is what RED had to develop when they designed Red Code and it's NOT an inherent JPEG trait. I'm pretty sure DCP uses the compressed color space JPEG2000 variation of the format, not like Red Code.

Canon has an up hill battle with this camera, the more I read, the more I wonder what it's purpose is. What we do know is that the body is $38k for PL mount. That's a very different price bracket then their current flagship model. It's also a pretty big camera, clearly borrowing styling cues from the F5/55. A lot bigger then their current flagship model. Honestly, I don't know if Canon can compete at that level. With used Alexa's dropping in price and a complete RED Dragon package being less then just the body of this new Canon, it's seemingly directly competing in the "I need a single system" camera market, which is already flooded with cameras, half it's price. Sure the C700 seems to do everything, but that in of itself is a red flag. I wonder if they're taking a page from Blackmagic and making an expensive/larger version first and then releasing a mini version next? C600 @ NAB? :P

I don't think it's right to post people's names in a public setting, where they may not remember what happened and aren't here to defend themselves. Also, if someone where to google their name, this thread could pop up. No reason to piss anyone off for the curiosity sake. I would love to post what I did to fix that clip, but after spending 20 minutes trying to get things back online, I realized that it's a futile attempt. The section in question is very difficult to find in the 20+ TB worth of material that's scattered about on 8 drives. If I stumble upon it, I will gladly make a thread about it and discuss it further. I also have a really cool fix I did that's similar, something I shot and messed up badly. It's always great to learn from mistakes, but even that material is long gone.

A compression type that uses mathematical equation of moving images can be considered a "codec". Yes it's true these two file systems are frame based, but they could be wrapped in a single file which is what Red did with Red Code. JPEG and Tiff as compression types can compress and store a greater gamut and bit depth then any other standard moving image codec we currently use. I happen to use the Tiff flavor personally, which is CinemaDNG.

JPEG/Tiff

Ohh I see your confusion! I'm a creative person and I'm not good with language. You used the word unfathomable earlier and I thought it was used in reference to something being impossible. As in, it's impossible (unfathomable) that someone with 30 years of experience doesn't know what they're doing, so it's assumed they do. In that context do you understand what I was trying to say with my earlier statement you take so much anger from? Do you know that other people on this planet, may use the language improperly. Your next hissy fit is unnecessary. It always amazes me how much anger people have.

The producer/production company split ways with the client and I was given the project after that happened. The client couldn't find their own mailbox in a rain storm, let alone script notes. Luckily, I have all of the red raw files and with Red Cine X, you can see the metadata and it gives you a picture of what happened on set. The cinematographer is a pretty well known guy in the industry, I'm sure many of you have heard of him. He's a FB friend with me and we chat every once in a while. So I could ask him, but since I already fixed the issue, thanks to the high latitude of the RED raw files, I don't see a need to bug him about something he shot 4 years ago. It was a lot of work to fix though... It would be fun to show how I fixed it through a screen grab.

Again, I'm "complaining" about other people's work, using specific cameras.. not my work. I'm generally happy with my rushes and because I personally use a high dynamic range codec and under expose slightly, I have a lot of latitude to make corrections in post. I don't judge people like that. Thanks for your advisement, but does the client sit with you in the coloring bay? Do they get angry at you (the cinematographer) when the look they are trying to achieve is impossible because of what you did or the limitations of the equipment? Unfortunately in the real world, the client is with the editor and colorist quite a bit and when stuff looks like crap, thanks to the look the client is seeking in post which may not match what was on set, you have to determine where the problem lies. This is why colorists all over the world, dislike lower-end cameras and very much like higher end RAW capture cameras. They want greater latitude for the client to make decisions in post because as you very well know, those things always happen. I mean, stuff I've edited and colored has been on national and regional broadcasts over the years. At the same time, I've worked on little indy short films for a few hundred bux. I'm not doing this work to make lots of money, I do it because I enjoy it.

Everything. Narrative, documentary, commercials, industrials, BTS, trailers. The only thing I don't do is model/fashion work. There is no other explanation. "Mistakes" are corrected when you turn on the histogram and realize how far off you are. "Mistakes" are corrected when you look at the video monitor and see how off it is. "Mistakes" are corrected when your DIT watches the material (in this case with Red Cine X) and tells you something is wrong. I believe the shoot was multiple weeks, but on the same sound stage.

David, I bet your accurate. It's 10 bit in 4k and 12 bit in 2k. Most likely a limitation of the processor.

Yes, it's actually very unusual. Most editors stay away from coloring. I only do it because it interests me. Sometimes what I do is final, other times I will export my DaVinci project for someone else to finish. Needless to say, I enjoy the "finishing" aspect of projects as much as editing, so I attempt to secure that part of the project whenever I can. Not accidentally, absolutely intentional. I don't have any footage online, but I will gladly post some samples someday. I'm going to reboot that project in October/November and I'll have things online once more. I was professionally trained as a youth and used it as a backup job for years.

One little detail... I think the imager processor is 10 bit. They seem to put that in the specs very clearly.

Here is the difference. You and I can't afford an Alexa, but if we had the money, we'd probably own one or at least a RED of some flavor. We're kinda stuck in a sub $5k camera world. I'm not a blackmagic devotee at all. In fact, outside of the pocket and Ursa Mini 4.6k PL, I think the rest of the cameras are seriously flawed. I haven't bounced on the URSA Mini yet because I think they'll do a major update soon. Still, I've never been just a shooter. If I shoot something, I'm most likely editing it. So things like codec's take a higher precedence then things like imager size, resolution or even built in audio capabilities. This is because, time is money and for me, the quicker I can edit something, the quicker the turn around, the more money I make. Most of the time I'm looking for "acceptable" rather then "perfect". I also like run and gun, so having a lot of dynamic range, especially in the highlights, is important for me. Maybe not so important for a big movie shoot where you can control everything. Hence the reason people get away with using crappy cameras on bigger shows. What I personally look for is camera system that fits perfectly with a native post production workflow. I'm also looking for something cinematic, something that doesn't have highlight clipping issues, that doesn't flatline in situations with too much brightness and isn't overly noisy.

But look at the price! HOLY poop! Canon is trying to break into the higher end market. Problem is, that market is pretty flooded with very good cameras.

My job is to make what other people shoot look good. So when handed a shot, it doesn't matter what format it's in, I have to make it look good. Lets say your signal to noise ratio is 50db. When you record a LOG curve, it requires translating that curve during coloring, which means raising the highlights and lowering the mids and blacks. Since you've baked in particular noise level, you're increasing the noise when you do this coloring work. I'm not talking imager noise, but "codec" noise. It's only hogwash because people like you, refuse to learn. I'm not making anything up, I work with top colorists all the time, on bigger jobs that I simply can't do. They always balk when I send the MPEG anything, they just don't want to deal with it because in their eyes, it's substandard. Few months ago, thanks to another thread where people said MPEG worked fine... I produced a video that destroyed the XDCAM 50 codec. Now that I have access to an F5, I will gladly produce a video that destroys the XAVC codec as well. We both know that's going to be a tough endeavor, but I know it's weaknesses and I will flaunt them. Of course... my "comparison" camera like in the last video, will be a $1000 blackmagic pocket camera in Pro Res HQ. I will use the same ISO, same stop, even the same glass just to keep that out of the equation. When I have time, I will make this, just to have a laugh. That's not what I said, I said it's unfathomable that the myriad of cinematographers I've cut and colored, are bad cinematographers. It also humors me when those same people work with a RAW or Pro Res camera it looks fine. So is it the cinematographer, or is it the camera? The feature I'm currently editing has a baked in look. That's because the cinematographer did a test with log and found the signal to noise ratio on the MPEG file to be a problem. Also I doubt anyone shooting with an F65 uses XAVC codec. Again, with Pro Res or RAW codec, the higher end Sony cameras look fine. Then it's down to all the other Sony bugaboo's, which the list goes on and on. Thank god the F5 and F55 have most options right on the side screen.

Robin, please back off. You need to stop being so close and tight to your Sony cameras. I have my reasons for not liking Sony cameras, especially the current fleet. You don't have to constantly defend your purchase decision with me. I don't own one, but then again I would never recommend one to anyone, ever. I have enough 4k proof right here for those people to see and understand. It's hard to transmit 10 bit 444 4k over the internet and for you to see it on a calibrated monitor on your side. So lets just say, since my job is to make what you shoot look good, that perhaps I have more insight to what each of these cameras does. Again, in perfect lighting, without any true dynamics, what you shoot with is down to glass more then anything else. When you get out of that world, when you truly run and gun, that's when these cameras show their true colors. I wrote a diatribe on the other thread, maybe you'll understand more where I come from. I also never said the material I work with is unusable. I said it requires a lot of re-working and the net result is noisy/grainy all the time. I think it's unfathomable that all the cinematographers, guys who have shot for 30+ years, don't know what they're doing. This is why I tend to blame the camera, especially since it's almost ALWAYS Sony cameras that are the problem. Since I'm an editor and colorist for hire, I've worked with a lot of cameras.

I'm discussing literally dozens of projects, shot over at least 6 years, none of which I've shot. Yes, this year I've had more experiences using modern 4k MPEG cameras, but I stay away from them based on the following experiences: Unlike your job, MY job is to make the show. I take the footage you shoot and put together what the audience see's and hears. Most of the time I work in Avid and color with Symphony/DaVinci. My workflows are industry standard, based on my editorial experiences working at various top post houses in Hollywood. So what I see is what I know. I'm not looking at a viewfinder and saying the shot is good. I'm not looking at a monitor on set and saying the shot is good. I'm not looking at a meter and saying shot is good. I'm looking at the final output camera file and having to match that file to other material, which in most cases is shot by the same cinematographer. This requires me to "tweak" the shot material in order for it to be a match. What I've learned over the years is based on my experience in post, more then it is a perfect setting on set, where you aren't seeing the actual file matched against maybe 600 shots that will compile the final project. All you know is what you're shooting at that very moment, you don't know how it will look in the back end, but I do. Armed with that knowledge and frustration when coloring, trying to meet clients expectations, I've formed my opinion on this matter. Mind you, I work A LOT with RED and Alexa cameras as well. I also shoot quite a bit with Pro Res cameras, like the one's I own. I use the same workflow with the Pro Res material and I'm happy to say, I rarely have the same issues. Yes there are times when poop happens, like the massive documentary project I took on earlier this year, which was under exposed by at least 3 stops and shot with a Red Epic. It took me days to come up with a workable solution that could be applied to all shots and even then, I will have to re-color once the client is done editing. I also don't like swiss army knife products at all. I'd say the only thing I own that's like that is my iPhone, it does a lot. All of my cameras have one function. All of my lenses do as well. This is probably why I dislike most digital cameras. My personal digital camera, the Blackmagic Pocket camera, looks fantastic for a $1000 body with $600 piece of glass. In the color suite, I find coloring my pocket cameras to be a piece of cake. I rarely have problems and when I do, it's because I was running and gunning on location and didn't have the time to make it better. I've pushed my pocket cameras where the MPEG cameras fall apart and far greater. Not saying the pocket camera has a better imager per say, just saying when it comes to noise levels and how much luminance and chrominance is in each frame. This goes for the Alexa as well, it's just an amazing looking camera right out of the box, that doesn't require much tweaking to make look awesome. Well anything looks good streaming 8 bit 4:2:0 50Mbps MPEG. Ohh wait, that's ALL forms of media delivered to the home; internet, satellite, cable, broadcast. So again, how do YOU know what it actually looks like? I've seen many documentaries and narratives shot with XAVC cameras and they always look like ENG cameras from the 90's. Lots of motion blur, lots of clipped highlights and plenty of noise. Most people use cameras like the FS7 due to it's high ISO setting, so that doesn't help either. I could care less if the audience can see in the dark, I'd rather have less noise on screen. I proved a few months ago how bad the 50Mbps Long GOP codec is... when I'm done with these two films, I will gladly post raw material in 4k for you to see how noisy and how much of a pain it's been to work with the FS7.

I never said XAVC is longGOP. I'd be glad to show you samples of how poor the XAVC codec is when you push it. I just can't do that right now... too busy editing.

Yes, I know and I never mentioned XDCAM anywhere. I'm specifically talking and mentioned many times iFrame, which as you well know is XAVC. Dude, I shot and serviced Sony for over a decade. I can say anything I want about them.

I have never worked with a good cinematographer. Maybe I'm just too picky.

Right, but that is a worthless codec that doesn't work for anyone but 1080p customers watching on a small television. I ignore it's existence because it's not 2005 anymore. That codec should have died off when the XDCAM optical format died in 2010 ish.