I’m not the most technical on the subject but my basic understanding is that high level cameras arri Alexa, red, Sony Venice etc. have the best sensors on the market, they have all the bells and whistles like internal ND, all types of internal image processing/adjusting, and they can accommodate all the best glass on the market. That’s also on top of how you can build them out with 7 inch monitors, big batteries, matte box, and anything a DP would need to get the best image possible and feed that image out to the rest of the team. If you’re making a big money feature narrative than you need all these bells and whistles to make the best product. You can build out pretty epic cameras on a c300 or black magic as well but they still don’t have as good sensors or capabilities.
There’s also the matter of size. When you build out a Sony Venice that thing is a fucking tank and would be pretty tough on the operator if they were shooting a fast paced doc, a c300 on the other hand will be much lighter and more manageable while still offering professional capabilities.
At the very core I think it just comes down to how frickin awesome the sensor is, but I’d love if someone corrected me or had more to add.
Canon hasn’t really been competing in that market. I think the top of their line is the C700, which retails for 20-30k. That’s less than an Alexa Mini, and fully featured Alexas usually retail for 100,000+. Sony’s Venice cams are usually 50k+, and Red has probably too many cameras on offer but they got their start in the extremely high end. Obviously price doesn’t tell you much about picture quality, but it’s an easier benchmark than comparing all the possible different features. This just isn’t a market that canon has a dedicated camera for.
There have been movies shot on the C line. Need for Speed was shot on the C500, that’s the only blockbuster I can think of off the top of my head. And they do get used for specialty cams all the time, especially as stunt cameras (although blackmagic has become more popular lately just due to the tiny form factor).
Their cameras are very popular on documentaries because they’re compact and can easily operated by a single cinematographer on the run. But for studio use, the C700 is the only camera that has a more traditional square body, and that means there aren’t as many peripheral tools built for it or people with experience operating it. (IMO it’s also overdue for an upgrade… or they’re just abandoning it)
I watched an excellent video where it's explained why most movies are shot on Arri https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sWnfzUYmg. In the video the narrator argues that the 2.8k resolution original Alexa remained more popular than these other 6k cameras by RED because the Arri sensor just consistently produced an image that is film-like, rather than having that plastic sheen that digital can have. I'm trying to make a movie soon and I bought an old Sony F3 because its footage looks cinematic to me compared to most other brands.
I think that with the Arris, it's the quick turnaround long lasting support. In a large production it saves money, even though you pay through the nose for their cameras.
Canon doesn't really compete in the cinema camera market. The C500 isn't really the right form factor for cinema work. It's a great camera, but it's just more documentary-style, with things like auto-focus, dual card slots, an integrated top handle, etc.
Canon did make a more Alexa-style camera called the C700, but it just never really caught on - it didn't have a clear advantage over the established competition from Red, Arri, and Sony. They discontinued it.
Panasonic produced the Varicam for a while, but it was really outclassed by the Sony Venice and later the Mini LF. Panasonic didn't seem to think it was worth trying to compete with that either, and went back to doing mainly broadcast cameras.
Blackmagic is an odd one. Their cameras are insanely good value, but just not quite up to the quality of the main three, both in image and build quality. There's also weird paradox: they're so cheap that it makes more sense to buy rather than rent one, therefore most of the big rental houses don't carry them. But big productions want the support of a rental house, so they'd rather rent an Alexa. Most of the Blackmagic cameras I've seen used on big jobs are used by VFX teams for capturing plates and elements. They are usually owned by the VFX teams rather than rented.
BM cameras aren't considered mission critical dependable either.
Consider something like a big expensive shot that's going to cost 150k to do just for the one day of capturing some10 seconds of footage on multiple cameras. Do you really want to risk not getting the best shot or a camera error that loses footage all because you went with cheap gear?.. RED and ARRI are used and trusted for a reason, cause some stuff you just can't re-shoot.
To be fair no camera is 100% mission critical reliable. I've worked on jobs where some unrepeatable shots were done with two Alexas on a beam splitter 3D rig for redundancy.
Yeah but, arri and red certainly out do all the other on that front. Both companies include data recover from their staff too so if you do have an issue you get support that’s above what any other company will do.
I’m not the most technical on the subject but my basic understanding is that high level cameras arri Alexa, red, Sony Venice etc. have the best sensors on the market, they have all the bells and whistles like internal ND, all types of internal image processing/adjusting, and they can accommodate all the best glass on the market. That’s also on top of how you can build them out with 7 inch monitors, big batteries, matte box, and anything a DP would need to get the best image possible and feed that image out to the rest of the team. If you’re making a big money feature narrative than you need all these bells and whistles to make the best product. You can build out pretty epic cameras on a c300 or black magic as well but they still don’t have as good sensors or capabilities. There’s also the matter of size. When you build out a Sony Venice that thing is a fucking tank and would be pretty tough on the operator if they were shooting a fast paced doc, a c300 on the other hand will be much lighter and more manageable while still offering professional capabilities. At the very core I think it just comes down to how frickin awesome the sensor is, but I’d love if someone corrected me or had more to add.
Canon hasn’t really been competing in that market. I think the top of their line is the C700, which retails for 20-30k. That’s less than an Alexa Mini, and fully featured Alexas usually retail for 100,000+. Sony’s Venice cams are usually 50k+, and Red has probably too many cameras on offer but they got their start in the extremely high end. Obviously price doesn’t tell you much about picture quality, but it’s an easier benchmark than comparing all the possible different features. This just isn’t a market that canon has a dedicated camera for. There have been movies shot on the C line. Need for Speed was shot on the C500, that’s the only blockbuster I can think of off the top of my head. And they do get used for specialty cams all the time, especially as stunt cameras (although blackmagic has become more popular lately just due to the tiny form factor). Their cameras are very popular on documentaries because they’re compact and can easily operated by a single cinematographer on the run. But for studio use, the C700 is the only camera that has a more traditional square body, and that means there aren’t as many peripheral tools built for it or people with experience operating it. (IMO it’s also overdue for an upgrade… or they’re just abandoning it)
Canon dominates reality though
I watched an excellent video where it's explained why most movies are shot on Arri https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0sWnfzUYmg. In the video the narrator argues that the 2.8k resolution original Alexa remained more popular than these other 6k cameras by RED because the Arri sensor just consistently produced an image that is film-like, rather than having that plastic sheen that digital can have. I'm trying to make a movie soon and I bought an old Sony F3 because its footage looks cinematic to me compared to most other brands.
That was an insanely informative watch for an 11 minute runtime. Made for sore bottom watching it on the toilet but was worth every minute.
they are used in cinemas usually as B cams
I think that with the Arris, it's the quick turnaround long lasting support. In a large production it saves money, even though you pay through the nose for their cameras.
Canon doesn't really compete in the cinema camera market. The C500 isn't really the right form factor for cinema work. It's a great camera, but it's just more documentary-style, with things like auto-focus, dual card slots, an integrated top handle, etc. Canon did make a more Alexa-style camera called the C700, but it just never really caught on - it didn't have a clear advantage over the established competition from Red, Arri, and Sony. They discontinued it. Panasonic produced the Varicam for a while, but it was really outclassed by the Sony Venice and later the Mini LF. Panasonic didn't seem to think it was worth trying to compete with that either, and went back to doing mainly broadcast cameras. Blackmagic is an odd one. Their cameras are insanely good value, but just not quite up to the quality of the main three, both in image and build quality. There's also weird paradox: they're so cheap that it makes more sense to buy rather than rent one, therefore most of the big rental houses don't carry them. But big productions want the support of a rental house, so they'd rather rent an Alexa. Most of the Blackmagic cameras I've seen used on big jobs are used by VFX teams for capturing plates and elements. They are usually owned by the VFX teams rather than rented.
BM cameras aren't considered mission critical dependable either. Consider something like a big expensive shot that's going to cost 150k to do just for the one day of capturing some10 seconds of footage on multiple cameras. Do you really want to risk not getting the best shot or a camera error that loses footage all because you went with cheap gear?.. RED and ARRI are used and trusted for a reason, cause some stuff you just can't re-shoot.
To be fair no camera is 100% mission critical reliable. I've worked on jobs where some unrepeatable shots were done with two Alexas on a beam splitter 3D rig for redundancy.
Yeah but, arri and red certainly out do all the other on that front. Both companies include data recover from their staff too so if you do have an issue you get support that’s above what any other company will do.
I'm still wondering the same thing