After putting the C70 through its paces for the last three years I've consolidated all my learnings into a course! Linked here: www.ericwalkervideo.com/c70
Great video. I think my slight departure from your take on it would be that the green screen and roto examples in the video are all extremely simple, most of what was done could be pulled off any modern camera with acceptable results. For a cinema camera shooting feature / narrative or documentary content the challenges I face as a VFX artist come with blue/green screen sequences shot outdoors with tracking markers and multiple chroma panels that don’t always have the same amount of exposure or chroma value. In fact often the larger the production the more variance you may have on large sound stages or outdoor shooting locations. 12 or 16 bits of color information will make a massive difference with challenging keys or roto jobs especially since professional roto, compositing programs like nuke and silhouette can use 16bit EXR workflows. The difference really comes up when you have to pre-process footage and push gamma/exposure values to isolate tracking markers needed to do a 3D solve etc. Raw or ProRes 4444 are fantastic in this regard. Not just big productions but smaller indie jobs benefit huge from these workflows too. One last thing on the color temperature data contained in RAW files. It’s not just more data but it’s data that’s stored separately in the unbayered file. Because it’s separate a bad color temperature doesn’t have a chance to contaminate the footage with any of its color making it much easier to get a clean image. Exposure, color, gamma are all stored independently and that’s huge for corrective issues. Anyway my two cents! Great video in general!
So you're basically saying I should get the C200 that this guy is selling for $2500 instead of the $3000 more expensive C70 since 8 bit and 10 bit footage isnt that big of a deal if you're just posting to social media and RU-vid? Is that what you're indirectly telling me ? Lol
I have a C200 and C70 and I really like the image from both. The 8 bit from the C200 is still very solid for most cases but you just have to go a little easier on the grades etc.
@@joshdiditt Depends what you need it for, really. I think if you can afford the extra $500 then it probably makes sense to get the C70 as it does offer more but I still think there is a place for the C200 in 2022. I had the C200 before the C70 came out, then got the C70 primarily as a gimbal camera. Having two cinema cameras for interviews is invaluable too. Does that $3000 include the 0.71x adapter? I would say that is a must have for the C70 personally (assuming you already have EF glass).
I shot my first wedding under my own brand and the videographer I hired showed up 5 minutes before the bride walk down the aisle without his camera gear ready. Also he refused to shoot in a log profile and his color temperature was set all the way warm. I haven't booked another gig since. Now I have two Cannon Cinema bodies and I am almost ready. I'm really excited for the future and I thank you for the content 🙏
Not sure if I'm the only one but the C70 does not appear to be displaying exposure correctly when I shoot in RAW ST or LT. I should be able to change this somehow in the custom picture settings if there was a correct RAW option...I do not have one though in my camera and I am not sure what custom picture settings I should be choosing to get the correct waveform, zebra etc displays for RAW. Right now I've settled on C9 Canon 709, but when I bring it into post I'm about 10ire off (too dark). Basically saying on my camera screen the waveforms will tell me I'm peaking at 100 ire and then in post I'm more like at 90ire. I understand the post process for RAW just kind of confused why I can't get the correct exposure tools on the camera to display the info for RAW. Anyone else out there who has seen this issue and found a solution?
I like the point added about RAW playback. Imo, if you are at the level that you "need" raw then you think you would have the acceleration to playback the footage. People who own this camera more than likely will have the specd pc for it, that is if you arent relying on mac.
This is what I find of the Canon R5 as well. Even if the R5 just can't do more range past a certain point the raw doesn't group together similar colors at the very bottom in the shadows the way HEVC will. HEVC is a codec that works on prediction and grouping similar colors together it assumes we visually cannot see. Thats great for a delivery format or shooting rec709 but for log the color difference are very subtle. Those lower stops already have an insanely thin amount of detail. C-log 3 for example only uses 3 10bit samples for stop -7. This is where the 12bits of raw and a codec not grouping together similar colors can make all the difference. I often wondered why I had. hard time seeing much of a difference between R5 raw using C-log 2 or C-log 3. Part of that is limitations of the sensor but the other part is both start off as raw so those ultra paper thin stops at the bottom have some much more data to make them recoverable. Internal HEVC recording C-log 2 has a clear advantage thanks to better sampling for HEVC to use in those bottom stops. If the aim is for shadow recovery and maximum range then raw is the way to go. Typically I think of 12bits as being a bit overkill but where it really matters is those bottom stops. if C-log 3 stop -7 only has 3 10 bit samples it has 12 samples for 12 bit which can make a huge difference when pushing up the shadows in a 32 bit float color environment. Plus raw doesn't do any funny business or farting around grouping similar colors together in macro blocks. Even a 12bit HEVC format may struggle with some very dark shadow detail just due to the nature of how IPB formats work.
Thanks for doing this. I'm guilty as charged for getting a little excited when the firmware finally dropped, and then went ahead and shot two projects the same week in 10 bit, ha. Very easy to think that there will suddenly be a massive change but the 10 bit was already great from this camera. Personally I think the only benefit might be when shooting outdoors, a big blue sky and lots of greenery, where a minor bump in detail and colour will prove satisfying. I have an off topic question if I may...doesn't your HEVC hang in premiere on your M1 Pro? Mine plays perfectly, scrubs perfectly, and then when I hit L a couple of times to go double speed (which I do all the time) it just freezes. The audio still plays but the video hangs and when I press stop it doesn't stop for like 20 seconds and it drives me insane. Had to switch back to XF-AVC but not sure if there's a fix.
I thought it was cool that Canon added this to the C70 but I didn't really think it would make a massive change for me day-to-day. I imagine I'll be sticking to XF-AVC most of the time. Thanks for the open and honest tests. I would like to test the C70 raw against the C200 raw which, I feel, is a much nicer image than the 8 bit (which I realise sounds obvious). 8 bit to 12 bit is makes a much bigger difference than 10 bit to 12 bit. Oh, and I think the raw is on the right.
Awesomeness as always ❤️ I was bummed too seeing the footage not improving in sharpness but I wouldn’t change DR for the sharpness ever, besides the c70 is still plenty sharp! Please look at my vid on the RF glass review! Would love your tips master jedi 🙏
I think left would be shot on RAW. Just looking at the colour tones it looks smoother in the fall off. Also, have been shooting with XF-AVC Long GOP for all my commercial shoots and I still find it pretty solid. Regardless, you definitely pushed out a lot of awesome C70 content. I'm learning more about my device as I'm watching your vids.
thanks for making this comparison! love the channel. excited to shoot the C70 underwater. for us UW shooters, the ability to change white balance in post is a godsend since color temp changes dramatically with depth. this has been a luxury reserved for stills photographers and RED shooters, until recently.
having used to shoot everything in 410mbps All-I, I find shooting in RAW LT's extra color depth (possible sharpness), and smaller file sizes quite attractive.
i think i am on the same boat.... i was excited, and honestly still am a bit excited about it, but it just not SIGNIFICANTLY better than it was. i will say though, i had a client meeting and for some dumb reason the ability to record RAW was important to them... never had that happen before especially cuz it does not make sense since they don't get the raw footage anyways, but people have a weird perception of quality, needless to say telling them i could shoot raw landed me a new project so i will take it and run with it.
I was surprised to hear anyone thinks it's not a sharp camera. I feel like the image is exactly sharp enough. Too sharp looks too "video" to my eye. I have found that the lens choice on the C70 has the most impact on sharpness. Our better lenses for sure result in a sharper image, but not so much that the client would even notice.
@@OhanaFilms I use the C300 Mkii paired with the C70 quite a bit. The image is super similar. (The C300ii is like 6 years old.) The C70 is a bit cleaner in the shadows but it really is so close... I just expected more with a 6 year newer processor and "DGO sensor."
@@BenEricson I guess I feel like if the image looks great I don't really care if it's only as great as a 6 year old censor. My eyes just really love the results from the C70 but it also depends on what you are shooting and many other factors.
after watching on my 2k monitor its definitely on the left. But couldn't really tell on my 1080p monitor. lol try c200 RAW thats a pain in the ass to edit.
I personally dont like to use RAW. I film weddings and dont see the need for it as color grading is minimal since I have a custom luts. Still cool to watch this to really see it from a different filmer.
Been a year, curious to see if you’ve found more use cases for C70s unique brand of RAW. Been shooting a lot in low light bars, even if I comfortably stop the blacks from being cut, I get some pretty nasty banding especially in out of focus areas with the 10-but footage. Switching to RAW ST eliminated most of that and even gave me a little more latitude to push contrast in post. The difference in less than ideal lighting situations is night and day for me. Colors appear way more vibrant too, especially around strong highlights - they come in less hot. The noise is easily dealt with in post and an easy compromise. It’s not as pleasant as the the fine grained lose of Pro Res RAW, defiantly the odd little artifact, but not ugly by any means.
The left one has better microcontrast, less millky/haziness, and less green undertone areas on the forehead and temple/jaws. It also has more chroma noise blocks in the shadows (shirt/wall), which seems to contradict the foreground, but that could be YT compression. I prefer the left, but I'm not sure which is RAW. I think that differences in focus, decoding/debayering settings, and certainly YT encoding really confound this kind of test. I want the left to be RAW. Also I think missing from the RAW argument is, beyond minimal grading, how it (certainly?) holds up to more aggressive grading and re-exposure. I'd like to play with the original side by side footage to see how the RAW compares without YT compression on top of everything.
Changing iso of a raw footage is the same as increasing the gain on your editing sofwtare. So by default, every editing can do it... Sorry i can't help for wb since i don't have fcp
Left is better. I agree 100% on all that you think is important. If you shoot it correctly... why all the concern about getting something back? Garbage in garbage out. I have 2 C70's and just got my R5c. I'm thrilled at the ease of matching. They both look fantastic. With all the tools available you should be able to get very close to perfect in the start. Good stuff bud.
Thanks for this. I think RAW is on the left, the right image seems smoother on your forehead and maybe less colour range. If I'm wrong then I'll have to think of an excuse 🙂
Clip on the left has more detail in the moustache, and the highlights out the window aren't as hot. I say RAW is on the left....though I like the skin rendering on the right better.
Nice video Eric! It's interesting to see the green screen comparasons : ) It would be interesting to a Premiere vs Davinci comparison maybe. Also I wonder if the frame drops are from your hard drive bottlenecking or if it's from the CPU tapping out. Another thing with premiere is that it doesn't give you full access to the RAW features : ( In Davinci Resolve, when you have access to the ISO as well as other things. Another thing I noticed in Resolve was that the RAW defaulted at +10 sharpness in the raw tab. I wonder if it does the same with premiere behind the scenes? Anyway, great video, keep up the great work man!
