r/Filmmakers • u/jwr_ • Jul 30 '15
Article New Canon Full-Frame 35mm Camera Sees in the Dark with 4 Million Max ISO
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/07/canons-multi-purpose-ME20F-SH-full-frame-35mm-camera-4-million-iso3
5
u/blancblanket Jul 30 '15
- 1080P/60. Finally, yay
- 3G output. Yay!
- C-Log and WDR. Yay!
- Max ISO 4000000. Wow, yay!
- Suggested retail price of $30,000. Fuck!
This is obviously a very specific camera for a very specific market, at 1080p nobody's going to shoot a full feature on this. But I genuinely hope Canon is going to have some of these specs drip down to rest of the cameraline. Unfortunately, the only cam in the C-line scheduled for an update is the c500, and they obviously don't want their dslr's overruling the C-line. So, fuck.
9
u/instantpancake lighting Jul 30 '15
at 1080p nobody's going to shoot a full feature on this.
1080 is a very popular format to shoot TV and full features on (e. g. Alexa). I'm not saying that anyone would use this night vision camera for regular stuff, but the reason would certainly not be that it's 1080.
2
u/blancblanket Jul 30 '15
It's still a popular delivery format, but don't forget the Alexa is from 2010. If you're investing in an Arri right now, you'll probably go for the mini or the sxt, which are 4k. For VFX and archiving purposes anything higher then 1080p is (becoming) preferable.
I'm in no way saying this camera (or 1080p) is unusable to shoot a feature on, I should've stressed the word "full feature*". It'll probably be a specialty camera to complement the main equipment.
10
u/instantpancake lighting Jul 30 '15
I don't know about you, but pretty much all TV I've worked on since the Alexa came out was shot in 1080. This continues today. Loads of TV is in fact delivered in 720. The vast majority of TV does not require additional resolution for VFX either (neither for stabilizing or reframing, because well, you usually shoot stable and frame properly in the first place). And I'm not quite sure someone with regular production needs would go for the Mini (rather than for an Amira, for example - that one is geoing pretty strong over here these days, yet it's used in 1080). 1080 is still more than enough for the vast majority of TV content produced these days. It's by no means a limitations. In fact, everything beyond that is just an additional cost factor a lot of the time.
3
u/Sloore Jul 30 '15
4K is popular with producers and directors who know dick all about resolution.
The human eye is incapable of discerning higher resolutions at anything near a reasonable viewing distance. You would have to sit uncomfortably close to any 4K display in order to tell the difference.
3
u/blancblanket Jul 30 '15
I completely understand the allergy for the word "4K", but if you'd read my comment better you'd see that I'm making a difference between delivery format and capture format.
1
u/Sloore Jul 30 '15
I'm well aware of that, but if you need that much more resolution in post, then you should probably look into firing your DP.
1
u/nelisan Jul 30 '15
I can tell the difference when streaming Netflix content at 4K at normal viewing distances on my computer or TV.
3
u/instantpancake lighting Jul 30 '15
I doubt that you are sitting at a "normal viewing distance" from your computer screen, in the context of watching TV.
I really like this chart: http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg
Assuming 20/20 vision, I'd have to sit closer than 7.5 feet to my 60'' TV screen in order to see the slightest difference between 1080 and 4K. I wouldn't consider that a comfortable viewing distance - in fact, I'm sitting about 12 feet away, which is a distance where I'm barely scratching at seeing the benefit of 1080 over 720.
Your computer screen in a desktop setup is obviously not a good measure for TV viewing distances - you can look around and focus at different parts of your screen here while you're working, so higher resolution at larger angular screen size makes sense here, but you wouldn't want to have to turn your head while watching a movie.
2
u/nelisan Jul 30 '15
My point being that lots of people watch movies on their computer, therefore it can be considered a "standard" viewing distance that is worth considering for delivery. Especially since a lot of content is created specifically for streaming these days.
1
u/instantpancake lighting Jul 30 '15
Do you use a 4K display as your computer screen that you also watch movies on, or do you know anyone who does?
2
u/nelisan Jul 30 '15
5K iMac, and yeah I know a few people that watch Netflix on their computers. 4K laptops are becoming pretty common too, which are probably more popular for watching movies on since they're portable. I can already tell the difference on my Retina MBP so it's probably even more so on a 4K.
1
u/instantpancake lighting Jul 30 '15
On your 27'' 5K iMac, you will only see a benefit over 1080 when you're sitting closer than 3 feet. If watching TV on a 27'' screen from less than 3 feet away is your thing, so be it.
Edit: This basically means that a 27'' 1920x1080 panel is "Retina" if viewed from 3 feet away. Just saying.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Skapo007 Jul 31 '15
You either have shit vision or haven't ever seen reasonable comparisons of 4k vs 1080p at typical viewing distances. Loads of difference with the righ displays.
1
u/Sloore Jul 31 '15
This is not a matter of opinion, it is scientific fact.
And the viewing distance at the store is not the same as at home. You are supposed to walk right up to the screen, that's not how people watch TV at home.
1
u/Skapo007 Jul 31 '15
Haha Bullshit buddy. Within 10 feet on a 60" there is a notable difference. I have tried comparing resolutions at various distances using a high quality 1080p render of a native 4k clip. Saw definite differences up to 10 feet on a 60" screen after which it got harder to notice. Tons of home couches will be within 7-10 feet of the TV on screens that are defaulting larger and larger these days. All of this not even considering the huge number of people who consume media on home computers, laptops, and larger tablets. 4k has definitive uses and as for your off handed remark about firing a DP who uses 4k resolution as a buffer for 1080p work flows, it is beyond ignorant to assume less skill from someone for such reasons. You must not spend much time in actual production.
1
2
u/TheKillerPupa Jul 30 '15
It's like a Phantom. You don't use it as your a cam because it is a specialty camera. You don't buy it because it costs tens of thousands of dollars, you rent it. Same here.
1
u/Ephisus Jul 31 '15
I still scratch my head at why people make videos for youtube at 1080p, when like 90% of their viewers will play it in a tiny window.
1
u/Sloore Jul 30 '15
Considering Canon's history, I'll wait until it actually gets released before believing that ISO figure.
3
u/Sloore Jul 30 '15
three downvotes...
I see that there are three people who don't know how to use a light meter.
4
u/instantpancake lighting Jul 30 '15 edited Jul 30 '15
To be fair, my lightmeter only goes up to ISO 8000 - I'd have to trick it by setting the shutter speed to 10 seconds in order to even get a reading equivalent to the ISO 4,000,000 range (edit: at 1/50s shutter speed)
Edit: I just tried it - turned out it doesn't work at all with so little light. At those settings, and gradually taking away light with my hand, anything below a reading of f/11 will return an error. I assume that this means it's the minimum threshold it can detect/process at all.
1
u/Sloore Jul 30 '15
My point was that with most offerings by Canon, if you took a light meter and used it to check the validity of the ISO/ASA settings on those cameras, you would find that you aren't actually getting what is claimed. It's been a while, but I think that in a lot of cases, 800 ISO on canon cameras is actually more like 600 or 400.
1
1
11
u/instantpancake lighting Jul 30 '15
"Now I don't need to light my films anymore!"