FORUMS: list search recent posts

Corporate Hubris

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Herb Sevush
Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 4:30:59 pm

I'm outputting to tape now, (I guess that means I haven't switched to X yet) so I guess I've got too much free time on my hands and I was reading some of the press releases about Canon's new camera offerings and I figured I just had to let this one out.

What the F where they thinking?

The recent announcements by Canon have once again left me shaking my head as yet another company appears to be stone deaf when it comes to profiting from their customer’s wants.

Everyone knows what the DSLR shooters were looking for: HD SDI monitoring & output while shooting, and better audio, all this while keeping the same low cost and large sensor size as the 5D and 7D.

And what has Canon come up with – a camera that's 8 X the cost of a 5D with a sensor the size of a 7D (to which it costs more than 12 x as much.)

Who do they think is gonna put down 20K for a Canon video camera? At that price you’re in Sony, Panasonic and even Red territory and much of the reason anyone cared about the 5D was comparative cost. And at that cost they reduce the sensor size, which is the only advantage they have over cameras like the AF100.

Again, what were they thinking?

Were they thinking the same thing that Apple thought when they came up with FCPX when any half literate noob could come up with the spec sheet that would have made for a great 64bit FCP8?

Were they thinking their customers were A**holes who could not only be led to water but who would lap it up gratefully singing hosannas along the way? I don’t get it.

Every time I hear someone talk about the inefficiencies of government and the virtues of getting a business approach in the White House I think – "please no, anything but that."

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 4:48:11 pm

I hear you Herb, Canon might be kicking themselves for that move down the line.

The only thing I would add is the difference between Apple with X is they are going to make money off that thing. They are going to sell the hell out of X, where Cannon might not do as well for the points you mentioned.

Like X or not, I don't think there is any question they are going to make money off it.

The more stuff they add to it (X) the more likely we are to cash in also.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 4:56:39 pm

[tony west] "Like X or not, I don't think there is any question they are going to make money off it."

But will they make more money off it then they would have made with the FCP8 of my dreams? I'm not sure about that.

They've discarded a high paying, hardware intensive market that already exists for an imagined mass market of smaller margins and fewer hardware requirements. Time alone will tell if it was the right move from a financial standpoint. I'm not yet convinced that such a mass market exists in the window between Imovie and Avid/PPro.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Oliver Peters
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 5:00:30 pm

I disagree about this camera. There are a lot of upper-end videographers who have been shooting 5D and 7D because of the look and flexibility. They have also been quite dissatisfied with the level of control and amount of rigging they have to do to get a viable "production" camera. These folks have spent thousands on Zacuto and RedRock accessories and Zeiss or Canon glass.

This is the market Canon is trying to address. It's the same market Sony is trying to address with the F3. In fact, you now have 3 similar cameras in that field: C300, F3 and Scarlet-X. Essentially the "mini-Alexa", "mini-F65" or "mini-Epic" market. That's a completely different field than the aspiring HDSLR shooter hoping for his first film. In the end, the street price will come down and then we'll see where it goes. If you are shooting with HDSLRs for more standard things, like corporate videos, webisodes, local spots, etc., then you are better served by the Panasonic AF100 or the Sony FS100.

As far as FCP X and price... I think you have to leave that factor out. Apple has the luxury of applying any price they want to the product without it being an accurate reflection of its place in the market or the R&D put into it to get there.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 5:34:37 pm

[Oliver Peters] "They have also been quite dissatisfied with the level of control and amount of rigging they have to do to get a viable "production" camera. These folks have spent thousands on Zacuto and RedRock accessories and Zeiss or Canon glass.

This is the market Canon is trying to address. It's the same market Sony is trying to address with the F3. In fact, you now have 3 similar cameras in that field: C300, F3 and Scarlet-X. Essentially the "mini-Alexa", "mini-F65" or "mini-Epic" market."


My point is if your going to drop 20K on a comparatively featured video camera, are you going to give it to Canon or Sony. Canon or Panasonic. Canon or Red.

Canon already tried to be a player in the video market and failed years ago. Now, despite themselves, they are the market leader in the DSLR market. Instead of either

A) Improving the performance of the 5D, or

B) bring their low costs and larger sensor size to the pro video market they decide to

C) go head to head with Sony and Panasonic on their Pro turf, with a camera that directly competes with both the AF100 and the F3, and that doesn't take advantage of the uniquely large sensor size of the 5D.

Years ago I was shopping HD camera's at NAB with a DP and I saw a JVC camera that I thought was the most bang for the buck. The DP flat out refused to consider it saying in his market he couldn't show up with a camera that had JVC on it and expect to make his rate. At least the JVC was cheap. What's so special about the C300 that will allow Canon to break into that circle?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 6:08:49 pm

Herb,

it's a good point that all of this started with the 5D MK11 and yet here we are with C300 looking at a camera at ten times the price, and that's without all the outboard kit that will be needed to make the camera functional out on location or in the studio.

I won't be buying.

I sat on the edge of the DSLR pool for about a year looking at the Heath Robinson contraptions that came onto the market to make these cameras usable. To my eyes it seemed incredible that people were actually strapping these pieces of hi tech meccano around the DSLRs.

Then I bought a Canon 7D and it all made sense, kind of, fabulous rich colour and shallow depth of field. But suddenly my visa card got really hot with all the bits I had to buy to feed the new beast.

And the sound recording was the biggest pain. Sure everything is possible but firing up 2 machines to record an interview out on a busy location and monitor both machines takes a lot of concentration. And the camera needs to have a break every 10 minutes to catch its breath. And then there's all the AA batteries I started buying in large multipacks.

On the up side it totally rejuvenated my interest in the filming business and I can honestly say that I've learnt more about aperture, depth of field, shutter rate, ND Filters and lenses than I had ever done through using camcorders.

And the shots looked great.

However the stress of external audio recording resulted in me buying the Canon XF305 camera, a small sensor very high definition 1080p camcorder with a really solid codec to record onto the SD cards.

So I've been really excited with the new developments from Canon. I can't afford the C300 but there is a Full Frame new Canon video DSLR (4K) in development which will draw on the same technology. It will be with us within the next year and I'm sure that that's when most people will upgrade from their 5Ds.

I imagine it will cost around the same as the AG AF100 and Sony Brick ( NEX FS100) and that all the lenses and toys I've bought over the last 2 years will find a new host.

The Canon XF Mpeg2 4:2:2 50Mbs codec will become as ubiquitous as Pro-Res is now.

And companies like Zacuto will continue to prosper well into the future.

And in a years time FCPX will probably be in its 4th version with every single problem resolved ( sure? ) and ready to roll onto the next crest of the HD wave.

So I'm feeling quite positive about this development.


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 6:19:19 pm

[Mark Dobson] "but there is a Full Frame new Canon video DSLR (4K) in development which will draw on the same technology. It will be with us within the next year and I'm sure that that's when most people will upgrade from their 5Ds."

Full frame 35 which is about a quarter the size of a 5D. I don't use them very often but I know the difference - to me the 5D was worth the hassle, the 7D was not. There is no reason to pick a 7D over a Panasonic GH2, which is much better equipped for shooting video, but the same cannot be said for the 5D. The large sensor makes a difference, and designing their new cameras with just full frame sensors is idiotic.

[Mark Dobson] "The Canon XF Mpeg2 4:2:2 50Mbs codec will become as ubiquitous as Pro-Res is now."

I assume your joking here.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

John-Michael Seng-Wheeler
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 6:39:05 pm

[Mark Dobson]
I won't be buying. "


This seems like the common thread in everything I've read about this camera. Lots of view points, from one end of the spectrum to the other, but I have yet to hear anyone say they're planing on actually buying it.

Usually they say they're going to buy the Scarlet.

Canon could have knocked one out of the park and absolutely owned their own little niche of the market that they created.

Instead, they decided to go after an already existing market where they have no name and didn't do anything to shake it up. We have a camera which takes on the F3 and wins on some points and loses others. If they'ed offered 4:4:4 SDI right out of the box and a MSRP the same as the F3, it would have been a different story.


Return to posts index

Mark Dobson
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 7:09:19 pm

Herb,

Not quite joking but slightly tongue in cheek.

The 35mm sensor would be a considerable jump up for me from the APS-C sensor thats in the 7D - almost twice as big.

However its not just the size that counts! The XF305 with its 3 1/3rd" sensors has been accepted for broadcast use by the BBC.

Maybe everyone will go for the EOS-1D X - or maybe there will be a 5DMk111 either way your quite right in that Canon seem to have jumped into the wrong market, possibly for the wrong reasons rather than simply providing a very active and responsive customer base with what they actually want.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 9:32:24 pm

[Mark Dobson] "The 35mm sensor would be a considerable jump up for me from the APS-C sensor thats in the 7D - almost twice as big."

Uh. The APS-C senor is almost the same as 35mm motion picture film, that's what you will some lot of film groomed DPs actually choose the 7D over the 5D.

A bigger sensor does not a better picture make on these still shooting DSLRs, plus the 7D does 60p in 720 giving you some slow motion if you want it. And the video out is a bit more stable (although still limited).

I'll tell you what I think they were thinking, Herb.

Look what they did, they gave a true video camera in a Cinema style package that most every preDSLR DP has come to rely on, such as better onboard audio recording, timecode, and the ability to send and receive various signals to various on set departments/gear.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

They have also chosen a proven workflow with the 422 Long GOP codec. They didn't have to go reinvent the codec wheel, and users (especially other Canon video camera users) are already familiar with the workflow. This basically means that the files are post ready and record to really cheap media cards. Also, look at their market. This camera represents a major step up from the DSLR market, but also keeps the workflow relatively easy, is innately more "professional" and most of their lenses will work with the EF version of the camera, too. That took some thought, when clearly they could have just went 444 and a whizbang codec, or allow users to rely on an external recorder like the F3 to get the most out of the camera. They added tc and a better codec to one of their DSLRs, and it's $7,000. If they would have added real time video out and a non h264 codec, it would have been around $10-12k. So why not just go for it and make a camera that's worthy of the video market and not the still market?

Assuming you have lenses for both of these cameras:

Let's compare to that a Scarlet where the "bare minimum" shooting package is $14k, and will get you about 25 minutes of recording time @ 24p in 4k. Before you know it, the Scarlet will be more expensive than the Canon in recording media alone (then watch what happens when you add a viewfinder to that cart). Ideally, you are going to want to get a RedRocket for post which is another $5k, and then you need all the bits and bobs. You can't say the Scarlet is necessarily cheaper.

These cameras operate very differently and I think will serve different markets (with some overlap of course).

With Red, you are buying in to a complete and total system, with Canon you are buying a tool that uses more generic recording mediums. They both have pros and cons, and shooting in Raw all the time isn't germane for every situation. Have you ever done a complete Red project before? If so, how'd you like it? How much time did you have?

Plus, we haven't seen this camera for ourselves, so in my opinion, it's a bit early to trash it without even trying it. Tech specs aren't the Golden Rule, and the price of these cameras does not include the price of the workflow. I'd also bet that as soon as Canon has these cameras shipping in volume, you will be able to get them. Red, you might have to wait. And then wait some more. Or you'll have a handle and no battery, or a media card and no reader, ham: no burger. Supposedly, they are working on supply, but the proof is in the pudding (or is that putting?).

In my opinion, it's not hubris, but a very deliberate decision to release this camera in this configuration.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 9:53:12 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Look what they did, they gave a true video camera in a Cinema style package that most every preDSLR DP has come to rely on, such as better onboard audio recording, timecode, and the ability to send and receive various signals to various on set departments/gear."

I'm not denigrating the camera in any way, I'm criticizing the marketing idea behind making the camera.

Yes, they made a pro video camera at a pro video price. And how does that distinguish them from the Sony F3? Why would I buy a camera from a company with a history of failure in the pro video market and no pro video distribution when I could deal with companies like SONY, Panasonic and Red.

The DSLR revolution gave Canon a unique market niche which they have steadfastly ignored for over 2 years. Now their brilliant idea is to throw away that niche to compete with other companies in the other companies marketplace with a very good, but not unique camera, while at the same time ignoring the original market that brought them to prominence in the first place.

Jeremy you know much more about cameras than I do. I am not a DP by any means, but I direct them and then work with the results of their labors. I know how loath many of them are to trust their workflow with untested vendors. To my mind cameramen are much more conservative with their tools than are post people. I just don't see what Canon is doing.

As always, time will tell. People vote with their wallets and in this case nobodies waiting for the upgrade to come out.

So tell me, is your company going to buy one?

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:28:36 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Why would I buy a camera from a company with a history of failure in the pro video market and no pro video distribution when I could deal with companies like SONY, Panasonic and Red."

I think Canon has been pretty upfront that this is their first cinema style camera. So yes, you have to factor that in to your decision.

[Herb Sevush] "The DSLR revolution gave Canon a unique market niche which they have steadfastly ignored for over 2 years. "

I think the camera we are seeing has probably been in development for two years, or more. These things don't happen overnight.

[Herb Sevush] "Now their brilliant idea is to throw away that niche to compete with other companies in the other companies marketplace with a very good, but not unique camera, while at the same time ignoring the original market that brought them to prominence in the first place."

Are the 5Ds/7Ds discontinued? I don't think they threw away a niche, this camera is not a still camera at all, it's a different segment of the video landscape. Rather, they joined another niche.

Also, they have that new camera that has tc and a beefed up h264 camera, the EOS 1DX.

[Herb Sevush] "Jeremy you know much more about cameras than I do. I am not a DP by any means, but I direct them and then work with the results of their labors. I know how loath many of them are to trust their workflow with untested vendors. To my mind cameramen are much more conservative with their tools than are post people. I just don't see what Canon is doing."

It's a new venture for them. They took what they learned from the DSLR crowd and made a real camera. From most professionals that I know that shoot with it, that's exactly what they wanted, a real video camera. It is true, it is yet another choice in an already fragmented market.

[Herb Sevush] "So tell me, is your company going to buy one?"

It's on the table. We haven't seen it yet, so we can't make a decision.

We are also slated to take Alexa for a spin later this year on a small series of spots. I am really looking forward to that one, but I highly doubt we'll buy an Alexa. That will be a rental and certain jobs only.

We like the style of the 7D (we have a 7D, not a 5D) but it consistently falls short on the types of stuff we need it to do. It has become a specialty tool. One of these cameras, be it the scarlet, the cf100 or the f3 will be probably something we purchase; then again, those will be tools as well. There's no one camera for us anymore, and if there's no one camera for us, that means that there's plenty of other people that are in the exact same boat. Although, I do feel that one of these sort of "mid range" cameras will eventually probably take over for our 7D.

What I like is that it will use our Canon glass right out of the box (as will a Scarlet).

the F3 will require a Birger mount, which is something that we have been waiting very patiently for a very long time. That mount doesn't inspire a bunch of confidence as the delivery track record of late has been similar to Red. Announce it, hype it, and don't deliver for a very long time. We can't buy another camera without a sure bet that it will plug in to our system.

Then there's acquisition. The 50mb Long GOP situation isn't my favorite, neither is XDcam. The Scarlet no question, has the best on board acquisition codec, but it's a bear to work with in post. It's not hard, just time consuming. We can't run a KiPro or Mini on every shoot we do, so the Scarlet looks pretty good to us, but again, we haven't seen it.

In the camera market, there's no clear answer for us, just like the post market. We have to wait for all of these things to release and develop a little more before we can make a move. We will certainly check out the CF100, along with the Scarlet and F3 + Birger. Just like FCP7, it's time for us to take the next step at some point in the future that seems to be just around the corner. Presently, we aren't quite sure where to go so we continue on with the tools at hand.


Return to posts index


Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:42:59 pm

Jeremy -

I missed the EOS 1DX announcement. Does it have HD-SDI out while shooting? I tried looking at reviews and didn't see it mentioned.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 11:12:13 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Jeremy -

I missed the EOS 1DX announcement. Does it have HD-SDI out while shooting? I tried looking at reviews and didn't see it mentioned."


Nope. Same video out as 7d has been reported. It's still limited.

Really, it's a decently higher end still camera, but has a few upgraded video features.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 11:25:48 pm

You had me ready to take back my whole argument for a moment. But no, Canon hasn't let me down.

They have a large base of users who have made them the darlings of the indie video world. These users are clamoring for HD-SDI out and pro audio. Do they get it - apparently not. That would be too easy.

Instead Canon wants to go compete in the pro market -OK, why not. But can't you do both? Why ignore your base, the folks who put you in a position to make this move in the first place? Most of them can't afford a 15-20K camera, no matter what the features.

I still don't get it.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 12:00:03 am

[Herb Sevush] "Instead Canon wants to go compete in the pro market -OK, why not. But can't you do both? Why ignore your base, the folks who put you in a position to make this move in the first place? Most of them can't afford a 15-20K camera, no matter what the features."

I think you're missing that these are still cameras. It's really that easy. This base you speak of has always been photographers and video is a bonus, not the other way around.

Most features on that camera are for stills, why would we need carbon blades?

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 12:18:23 am

I think a lot of people were holding off buying AF100s or FS100s until after the announcement. I'm betting Sony and Panasonic's sales numbers have risen on these cameras in the last few days.

"My Name is Steve and I'm an FCPX user"


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 1:19:09 am

If you have electronic canon glass, you will need a Birger as well, to take advantage of the aperture and focus on some lenses.

It's been delayed. Again. It just moved behind the f3 in priority a few days ago.


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:28:35 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Yes, they made a pro video camera at a pro video price. And how does that distinguish them from the Sony F3? Why would I buy a camera from a company with a history of failure in the pro video market and no pro video distribution when I could deal with companies like SONY, Panasonic and Red."

Well I don't think it's a fair statement to say Canon has failed in pro video. They are one of the most successful lens makers in the world and they make some of the most pro lenses you can buy. I think what happened though was over the last 10 years there was so much change in video cameras they just never came up with the right combination at the right time although they still had some success in the prosumer market. That changed with the 5D and 7D which probably took them by surprise but all of those sales I'm sure got their attention and it probably sunk in what people were looking for.

But in any case it will be the look of the camera that sells it or not. I think Canon is in an excellent position to come out with a great video camera and I'd have no reservations buying one if I was pulling in the sales to justify the price. Since I'm not I'll stick with the 5D for now.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:31:55 pm

I went with Sony.

The EX1R

I used no DOF adapter and no MB on this shot. Just controlling the amount of light into the lens.

People see it and think it's a 5D shot.

Nope.

I have seen great looking shots from those D's

I'm happy I can get that look and get my audio into the camera the way I have always been used to.



Return to posts index

Helmut Kobler
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 7:10:20 pm

I think it's too early to tell if Canon made a bad move or not.

Herb, you seem to think nobody will prefer Canon to any other established player at the same $20K price point (more likely to be $16K), but I'm not sure why not. It's not like Canon is a fly-by-night company. It's not as if they don't already have some positive mojo with a ton of shooters via the success of the 5D and 7D for shooting video.

If the new 300 camera delivers a beautiful, cinematic image, with good support for audio, HD-SDI outputs, and great ergonomics, I'm not sure why people wouldn't favor it over a much bigger Sony F3, or a Red Scarlet that has a much more complicated and cumbersome workflow.

-------------------
Documentary Camera in Los Angeles
http://www.lacameraman.com


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 7:16:28 pm

[Helmut Kobler] "you seem to think nobody will prefer Canon to any other established player at the same $20K price point (more likely to be $16K), but I'm not sure why not."

FWIW - I've already had one "A-level" commercial Dir/DP express interest to me in considering this camera. He owns a 5D and lenses, plus 35mm film camera and gear. His high-end video shoots have been with Alexa. For him the proof will be in the image and ease of use in actual production.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:02:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Every time I hear someone talk about the inefficiencies of government and the virtues of getting a business approach in the White House I think – "please no, anything but that.""

And show me an example of government efficiency, please.

Chris


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:28:17 pm

Hoover dam.
The Manhattan Project.
The interstate highway system.

Should I go on?

The Saulk Polio Vaccine (public health care without the profit motive, imagine that!)
Draining the malarial swamp to build Washington DC.
THe Golden Gate Bridge (or any other major one, in the US, really
Nuclear submarines (know any private corporations building those for profit?)
DARPA and the Internet (Bennett Cerf is still on record saying that Al Gore was the key guy in congress that would even listen to him)

I'll stop here my point being made.

"Before speaking out ask yourself whether your words are true, whether they are respectful and whether they are needed in our civil discussions."-Justice O'Connor


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:44:05 pm

Bravo -

I had my own list but didn't want to turn this into a political thread.

Glad you did.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Chris Conlee
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:59:14 pm

Bill et al.,

In the interest of not hijacking (completely) this thread, I'll let it go. Although the desire to respond is strong.

Chris


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:28:34 pm

[Chris Conlee] "And show me an example of government efficiency, please."

I wasn't trying to make this a political discussion, I said that rhetorically. And if you actually read the line I didn't say government was more efficient, I just said that big business wasn't a model of efficiency that I cared to emulate.

But if you'd like my answer to your question I'd be glad to offer it to you off-line.

h.sevush@gmail.com

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 2:22:48 am

"And show me an example of government efficiency, please"

If your house ever catches on fire, or someone violates you IP rights... just sayin'..



Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 9, 2011 at 10:09:48 pm

I understand the confusion. I was really surprised at the price tag on that more than anything else. But there are plenty of rumors that a 5D MK III is on the way out which addresses some of the limitations of the MK II. But yeah, 20K just doesn't make sense but who knows what the image quality will be, we'll see if it catches on. But my guess is this unlike FCPX is a professional product, aimed at the RED/Sony maybe even Alexa market.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

Richard Cardonna
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 1:22:00 am

Canon went into the pro now Hasselblad should be next.

RC


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 5:43:21 am

[Herb Sevush] "There is no reason to pick a 7D over a Panasonic GH2, which is much better equipped for shooting video, but the same cannot be said for the 5D."
I expect to get me a Lumix.
There is hack that allows recording at "170Mbps". That's amazing.

The CANON EOS 1D-X with his new processor looks great. That should greatly improves video over the 5D and 7D. But again, no SDI out.. This camera will kill the 5D, at least for video. Bigger sensor is just a burden when you are recording 1080.
But a tribute to the 5D. She made the revolution.

I think that a 15/20k camera with just 8b/422 recording is real shortcoming. The CANON C300 or the F3 makes sense only with an external recorder. MPEG-2 is great, but not at 50Mbps.
Another great option is the "PANA AF-100 + an external recorder", but again, the SDI puts out just 8b Unc.
PANA they have just released a 5K camera that records (AVC-I) and puts out the SDI 10b Unc, but just 1/3" CMOS.
So whatever the combination you make, in the end is about to, as Mark said, getting the VISA card on fire.
Every affordable camera is some somehow, and purposely handicapped.
To get what you need you have to pay for what you doesn't need.


[tony west] "The EX1R

I used no DOF adapter and no MB on this shot. Just controlling the amount of light into the lens.

People see it and think it's a 5D shot."


The EX-1/3 still being the best value in the market.
You don't get nowhere else 1/2" CMOS and 10b Unc out for that price.
I love my EX-1.
I record on a NANO-Flash which allows me to select from 19Mbps/LGOP/420 to 280Mbps/422/Intraframe.
That's virtually 8b Uncompressed.

[Mark Dobson] "The Canon XF Mpeg2 4:2:2 50Mbs codec will become as ubiquitous as Pro-Res is now."
That's is 8b/YUV LGOP while Prores is 10b/YUV Intraframe.
The workflow is great (XDCAM), but 50Mbps is in the limit for MPEG-2/LGOP/422.

Rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

tony west
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 12:47:58 pm

"The EX-1/3 still being the best value in the market.
You don't get nowhere else 1/2" CMOS and 10b Unc out for that price."

You got that right, I still can't believe how good that camera looks for the money.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 3:31:14 pm

"Bigger sensor is just a burden when you are recording 1080."

Why do you say that? I'm not doubting you, I'm asking out of ignorance.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 3:46:45 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Why do you say that? I'm not doubting you, I'm asking out of ignorance."

This is an awesome article about resolution, from way back in aught nine:

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of...


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 4:47:13 pm

fantastic article, I'm still trying to digest some of it. Thanks for pointing me to it.

As an aside, I loved the discussion of frame rates. I went to a lecture by Doug Trumbull about Showscan and believe wholeheartedly that an increase in projected frame rate would be an incredible advance, although i doubt it will ever happen. The discussion about the so called "magic" of 24 fps reminded me of many a futile argument I had on the Cow on this subject when 720P60 first became a standard.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 6:34:28 pm

[Herb Sevush] "The discussion about the so called "magic" of 24 fps reminded me of many a futile argument I had on the Cow on this subject when 720P60 first became a standard."

I would be interested in seeing 48p in both acquisition and delivery. There's no question that p is better than i.

There are many merits to 24p in a bandwidth driven world, aesthetics aside.

Remember 24p wasn't crated for aesthetics, it was a technical limitation at the time. It's just last this long and the technology has far surpassed that limitation.

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 7:08:06 pm

"I would be interested in seeing 48p in both acquisition and delivery. There's no question that p is better than i."

Showscan was 60 FPS 65mm acquisition and projection. It was amazingly vivid.

"Remember 24p wasn't crated for aesthetics, it was a technical limitation at the time."

That is both the truth and my argument at the time, but you will be amazed at how many people argue that 24 is some sort of mystical perfect frame rate.

As far as bandwidth goes why stop at 24, with digital audio why not go down to 18, which was the speed generally settled on before the advent of sound. Apocryphally, the only reason that frame rate wasn't lower was that slower rates triggered epileptic seizures in the audience. In any case 18 fps provides a clean illusion of motion.

Trumbull's argument was that the media business always went for the cheapest (and worst) possible standard that the audience would accept, but why not give them a much higher standard and see if they will pay for it. 48 fps converts more neatly to PAL so it would probably makes the most sense.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 7:29:58 pm

[Herb Sevush] "As far as bandwidth goes why stop at 24, with digital audio why not go down to 18, which was the speed generally settled on before the advent of sound. "

I don't think anyone would argue to go further down, although who the hell knows these days.

[Herb Sevush] "Trumbull's argument was that the media business always went for the cheapest (and worst) possible standard that the audience would accept, but why not give them a much higher standard and see if they will pay for it."

Yeah, cheaper is usually better in the case of film. I mean, if you have to add "x" more feet of film per screen, that will be "x" more dollars which you either pass on to the theatre goers, or eat. That changes a little bit with digital delivery/projection.

It's like if we were to day today, every new car sold to be a hybrid. That would automatically mean every single car has a premium put on it. Most people would be pissed, except those who wanted a hybrid to begin with.

Why stop @ 48? Why not go to 72(75) or 96(100)!!!! ;)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 7:42:31 pm

Why stop @ 48? Why not go to 72(75) or 96(100)!!!! ;)

Trumbull didn't stop at 48 he went straight to 60. At the presentation, which took place at the Ziegfeld Theater in NY, he had a reason for 60 but I don't remember what it is now.

It is true that being a slave to backward compatibility is often a nuisance - see, now where back to FCPX but I'm arguing for your side now -- bite my tongue.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 8:04:44 pm

[Herb Sevush] "At the presentation, which took place at the Ziegfeld Theater in NY, he had a reason for 60 but I don't remember what it is now."

Probably because tv runs @ 60Hz in the US.


[Herb Sevush] "It is true that being a slave to backward compatibility is often a nuisance - see, now where back to FCPX but I'm arguing for your side now -- bite my tongue.
"


Ha! Good one.


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 8:26:29 pm

"Probably because tv runs @ 60Hz in the US."

I assume you meant that electricity runs at 60Hz. Since Showscan was primarily a theatrical concept I don't see why this would be germane, but i don't have a better reason.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 8:29:08 pm

[Herb Sevush] "Since Showscan was primarily a theatrical concept I don't see why this would be germane, but i don't have a better reason."

So the ShowScan programs could have a life after the theatre (on TV).

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Michael Gissing
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 10, 2011 at 10:40:46 pm

I read a technical article about Showscan many years ago when I worked as a sound recordist on an Australian Showscan film. Apart from the fact the camera sounded like a cross between a jackhammer and the biggest dentist drill with the camera op wearing industrial earmuffs, the decision for 60 fps came from tests with human persistence of vision. Trumbull found from 50 frames per second upwards, most people would register two frames per eye refresh, making grain effectively blend an disappear.

The human eye doesn't have a frame rate but a perception and persistence rate around 25-30 refreshes per second. 60 frames was enough for almost everyone but also a neat match to 60 hz. Traditionally the film industry has used mains frequency to sync lock mag dubbers, projectors and optical sound cameras so it made sense to stop at 60. Higher frame rates catch a tiny percentage of viewers who need a rate above 50, but there is no sense going higher and higher as it is diminished returns.

There has always been arguments for and against temporal versus spatial resolution. I read somewhere that Avatar was shot at 1920 x 1080 120 frames (with alternate frames for each stream so effectively 60p). Peter Jackson is shooting The Hobbit @ 48p per 3D stream 5K with Epics. So he is going for both spatial and temporal improvement. Still an issue with conversion to PAL 25 as there is still a 4% speed change.


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 11, 2011 at 2:53:06 am

[Jeremy Garchow] "This is an awesome article about resolution, from way back in aught nine:

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of....."

Jeremy, thanks for bringing buck that incredible article.

[Herb Sevush] "Why do you say that? "
Herb,
Beside some of the article considerations, you know that downscaling in software without a good plugin can highly degrade the picture (FC). Things gets more complicated when you have to do it in hardware, in RT.
You need a processor designed for that task and this is the problems of the D5 which processor was never intended to downscale in RT 30 stills per second (the Lumix processor was, and this why shines on video).
Video cameras with full raster 3 CMOS/CCDs skips all that hassle.
rafael

[Jeremy Garchow] "[Herb Sevush] "At the presentation, which took place at the Ziegfeld Theater in NY, he had a reason for 60 but I don't remember what it is now."

Probably because tv runs @ 60Hz in the US."

Right.
The only stable (?) reference a TV set could have in a house was the AC (60Hz in the USA, 50Hz in Europe/Aus).
Anyway, think that in modern TVs/computers (100Hz screens) display 100 images per second, although you can see that because is the same image repeated.
[Herb Sevush] "It is true that being a slave to backward compatibility is often a nuisance "
Is not backward compatibility.
You are watching 60 PICTURES per second your whole life; before they where Interlaced (half picture),
now Progressive: Just more definition but the same images (smoothness).

50/60 has been the Broadcast standard, but the future is more fps's. Cameras can shoot it, screens can display it. People will love to slow down that action at home.


[Michael Gissing] "The human eye doesn't have a frame rate"
Right.
We only refresh our "brain screen" when we blink our eyes.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 11, 2011 at 2:58:02 am

Sorry for all that meaningless "technical mumbo jumbo" that just humps "creativity".
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:45:36 am

From what I heard back in the old days when they were figuring this stuff out, they decided 24 fps was about as slow as you can get away with. It was really a cost thing as more fps = more $$$$. But very importantly each frame rate has a look and different frame rates are better for different things. I personally like 30P a lot for the look and ease to work with. Peter Jackson I hear is going 48P. It will be interesting but it will also be a very different look and will look more video-ish and makes drama look more soap opera like but has way less motion blur which is good for fast paced stuff.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

Robert Brown
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 11, 2011 at 4:38:24 am

Oh it's happening. 48P will be in some major films near you in the next year or so.

Robert Brown
Editor/VFX/Colorist - FCP, Smoke, Quantel Pablo, After Effects, 3DS MAX, Premiere Pro

http://vimeo.com/user3987510/videos


Return to posts index

Rafael Amador
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 11, 2011 at 5:37:49 am

24 is the traditional film standard so 48 is the logical speed for smoother film.
In fact film, although 24 images per second is displayed at 48.
Each photogram is projected twice to avoid flickering.
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com


Return to posts index

Jamie Franklin
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 14, 2011 at 6:45:49 am

Sorry I'm late to the party, but if you had a choice right now Herb, what camera would you recommend or choose below 15k?


Return to posts index

Herb Sevush
Re: Corporate Hubris
on Nov 14, 2011 at 4:13:41 pm

"if you had a choice right now Herb, what camera would you recommend or choose below 15k?"

I'm not a cameraman, my opinion on this matter is ill informed at best. I wrote the opening rant as much to criticize Apple as Canon; I saw a link in the behavior of the two companies that I didn't and still don't understand - the desire to ignore an established group of loyal customers in favor of going after an imaginary larger pool of possible consumers.

As for cameras used on shoots I'm directing, for DSLRs I like the Canon 5D and the Panasonic G2, and for more traditional sized cameras with a higher budget I like the Panasonic AF100. They all have their limitations but they can produce extraordinary shots for the money, in many cases I would take away the qualifier and leave it at extraordinary shots.

Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
---------------------------
nothin' attached to nothin'
"Deciding the spine is the process of editing" F. Bieberkopf


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]