Of course!

Agreed - pretty awesome. Especially for Canon.

That sounds about right! Good info 👍🏼

Great info, thx a bunch for sharing (: is this when shooting RAW ST Cinema RAW Light ?

@@ikancommunicate Yes that’s right. See how you get on and any improvements do let me know. Cheers

🤙🏼

This sounds nice - but also sounds like a brand new camera!

Nobody makes an FF 4:3 sensor. I don't think it's likely that will ever happen either unless ARRI themselves have a special sensor made for whenever the FF equivalent of the Alexa 35 comes out. All FF sensors are 3:2, because the economics of making sensors dictates that they have to have multiple purposes to be profitable. Making a 4:3 sensor that is as wide as a FF 3:2 sensor isn't a marginally larger size, it's near 15% larger. Considering that most of Hollywood is still shooting 17:9, that's a lot of additional silicon that a majority will never use. In practical terms it doesn't make any sense to chase that user base because by increasing the cost say $500-$1000 to increase the sensor height, you'd get less sales from the people that would've bought the camera but now can't afford it (or otherwise will buy a different camera that makes more economic sense) and don't care about anamorphic. So much so that RED with cameras like the Komodo have bet the opposite way, using a wider 17:9 shaped sensor (rather than a 3:2 or 4:3 or even 16:9) to squeeze more sensor size out of an "s35 sized" sensor. The economics behind making sensors would have to change significantly to even "just" get a different ratio. ARRI is somewhat of an exception because their sensors are bespoke, but that's also why their cameras start at $40k. To go back to the Alexa example, even the LF uses a 3:2 sensor and cuts to 4:3 or 1:1 if shooting anamorphic is desired. The ALEXA 65 is simply wider than FF, it doesn't have additional height. Even though I said it would take ARRI to make a 4:3 FF sensor for there to even be one on the market, I find it incredibly doubtful that they'll do this. As much as it's a "cool idea", it's just not pragmatic.

That's a great idea Stephen! We'll definitely get some in the works. In the meantime, our process has been: transcode/import via compressor to a Prores 422 format.

This will go straight to Dane's ego - but he could use a win. Thanks Way Out West!

Anybody care to answer this?

You know - we'd probably go with a C70 and a C200. There would be no fear about heat issues, and the quality coming out of those is more similar (super 35 sensor). Not to mention have full video controls on both your cams. But hey - full frame is nice too 🤷🏼‍♂️

Hey David! Thanks for asking. We don't have that readily accessible! Hopefully you can find some samples elsewhere!

Hey! Sorry for the late reply! I think we switched between the sigma 24-70 over for each test!

Definitely! Honestly, we are mostly in Da Vinci these days, but did that roundtrip process for years, so it's still worth creating!

@@forewordco looking forward to seeing your roundtrip process video

Hey Cedric - we will be up front in saying that we are/have been Mac based for our whole careers. Not sure exactly where we could even start in answering your question! I hope someone can chime in in the comments here!

@@forewordco thanks for the reply. It's just that it's amazing that the codecs are supported in a way that's one codex here for this editor and one here for this other one. Unfortunately for me my editor only does the lower end on the C70 paid all this money for the camera and can't use the big quality codecs. 😕

Hey Duvi! Don't have a comparison handy, but I would guess the transcoded files are still bigger! The C70 allows you to shoot in a RAW LT codec that's great quality and much smaller in file size, whereas the RAW codec on the C200 is quite large. Prores makes it easier for editors to handle, but is very similar in size. In addition, there's all the codec variation on the C70 that would provide great quality at a much smaller size (like H.265).

@@forewordco ok cool. I’ll have to rent a c70 to test the files on my machine

Hmmm... that is a good question and maybe a longer answer is necessary... Generally, the white balance will be adjusted at the time of shooting (you have more freedom here with RAW footage, but still). An important delineation for clarity: RAW is a codec, and C-Log is a color profile. So you might be shooting in a RAW format with canon's C-Log 2 color profile. When you talk about applying a Rec.709 LUT, I assume you mean you are seeing a Rec.709 preview on your camera, because when you shoot in a RAW format it needs to be in a LOG color profile. You can get that white balance dialed in with the RAW output visible or with the Rec.709 preview LUT overlaid - it might even be easier to determine if you have it at the right WB with the Rec.709 LUT. In terms of "color correction," that's a step that happens in the post-shooting phase, where you'd pull it into an editor and get the color corrected/matched and graded to a proper output for whatever delivery you intend! Hopefully that's a helpful delineation for you!

@@forewordco Wow thank you for taking the time to break that down I truly appreciate it. Have a great one

@@HalfGuardMedia Of course! Thanks for asking! It's a good question!

Hey Lorenz! Would you mind being more specific with your question? When shooting in RAW formats, you don't have any effect on the picture profile (and sharpness)!

You know - we didn't, but we got it up there first thing this morning! Head here and see what you think: vimeo.com/695723133/74dc9ae394

@@forewordco Thanks so much i'll check it out!

@@forewordco Just pixel peeped and tbh yeah they're pretty close like you said, I think maybe a slight edge in detail to the c200, but I'd probably agree the c70 being "better" considering how much more manageable the file sizes are and less noise. Can I ask what lens you guys were shooting on/if you were using the speed booster for the c70? you might have mentioned and I missed it.

@@Videosbyme278 Glad you had a similar conclusion! And we had the Sigma 35mm 1.4 on the speed-boosted C70, and the sigma 24mm 1.4 on the C200! Nearly the same file of view!

@@forewordco Ok great! I'm actually curious if the speed-booster reduces detail/sharpness on the c70 since it's adding more glass in front of the lens, I've seen mixed things about that. It definitely lowers contrast/adds more flaring in sunny situations. Would love to know your thoughts as well. Thanks again for the tests!

That's not our understanding - but we're willing to be proven wrong! As we understand it - the "native ISO" is still important because that's the ISO of the respective cam that will yield the highest dynamic range. We find RAW formats allow for better resolution detail and better color depth. Noise and dynamic range will still be a problem as you increase ISO! Maybe someone out there can confirm or deny this.

They've matched pretty well, especially in terms of exposure/dynamic range, but the big difference is in color tint. The C70 sensor is warmer/more magnets than the C200 sensor! That's the big difference 👍🏼

An update on this warmth: we saw another review of the speed booster from canon, and that might actually be the culprit of the warm tint in the C70. Something to keep in mind/consider!

In this video we had the Sigma 35mm 1.4 on the speed-boosted C70, and the sigma 24mm 1.4 on the C200! In general, we use Sigma Art glass on both (the c70 has the Canon EF speed booster)! The only real difference is that on the C200 we can use the wonderful Sigma 18-35, which vignettes badly on the C70.

We'll add it to our to-do list for the full comparison! Thanks!

@@forewordco - this video is fantastic. thank you. Psyghsea - you do not want to see that test. I own and use both camera on a regular basis and the c70's Long GOP 4K *destroys* the 8-bit 4K coming off the C200. It's not close.

well the c70 eats the c200 for breakfast when it comes to non-raw codecs, i dont think that comparison would be fair at all.

This is all true, It's the worst thing about the C200 (in our humble opinion), and is definitely one of the more impressive sides of the C70.

My guess would be that if you had the C200 rolling its RAW codec and the C70 on its RAW ST, the image would be close, but probably in favor of the C70. The sensor in the C70 is the same as the C300 Mark III. Again, mileage may vary, and is probably negligible. The C70 Raw files have definitely been easier for us to work with in our NLE than the C200 ever was, and there is far less shadow noise as well 👍🏼

@@forewordcowhen shooting raw on the c200 with lots of shadows do you set the iso to 400/200? I heard that it’s best to do that and use native iso for regular to bright scenes.

interesting as i see in the video the c200 is sharper and there is better color separation sold my c200 long time ago and i own c70 i love the dr but i do prefer the c200 colors science and sharpness @@forewordco

Honestly, from what we've seen... the LT is 95% as good as the ST, so we use that when we shoot in RAW on the C70. However, we've most recently been shooting in the HVEC codec to great success 🤙🏼

The visual differences are certainly minor to some, and most visual testing will be somewhat subjective. However, the other reasons mentioned are certainly worth considering the cost if you are wanting to shoot in RAW. File size, media, post-workflow, etc. Either way, we still love our c200s! Wonderful, reliable, and very flexible cameras with a beautiful image.

Go Wolves!!!

Yo HNP! Not hiding that there was an artificial key and a window - but it was an overcast day with no relative change. But, you're right! For an ideal side-by-side, we should have killed the window. I think what our experience has been and was illustrated in this comparison, is that the C70 sensor not only handles color differently (which it absolutely does, especially with the canon speed booster) - but also has a different shadow roll-off and noise levels (and we've seen repeated as we've shot more) in the respective codecs. While you're right on the whole, your criticism feels a little intense for a video with "quick and easy" in the description. Be well, and thanks for the input!

@@forewordco agreed, I do see that my thoughts seemed inappropriately intense. I appreciate you calling that out, and I apologize for my approach. All the best!

@@J_HNP No worries at all! Thanks for the kindness 🤙🏼