# Is ARRI Canon's Biggest Obstacle in Professional Cinema?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 20, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/is-arri-canons-biggest-obstacle-in-professional-cinema/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/is-arri-canons-biggest-obstacle-in-professional-cinema/">Tweet</a></div>
Was there any doubt? :)</p>
<p><a href="https://www.facebook.com/setlife.magazine" target="_blank">Setlife Magazine</a> has posted a couple of graphics showing the technical specifications of cameras and lenses used in the making of the cinematography & best picture nominees.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.eoshd.com/content/11914/red-cameras-absent-oscar-cinematography-best-picture-nominees" target="_blank">EOSHD</a> points out a very interesting observation. There isn’t a single RED camera on the list. It’s almost a clean sweep by ARRI.</p>
<p>Although, Canon should be happy with the C300′s and C500′s that have shown up in a few films. I think it’s good news for Canon since Cinema EOS is still pretty infant, and as EOSHD points out, they’re under-specced compared to their competition.</p>
<p>Something to build on for Canon.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/oscars-2014-cinematography.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-15568" alt="oscars-2014-cinematography" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/oscars-2014-cinematography-575x283.jpg" width="575" height="283" />

</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1545569_1435538563346548_805595201_n.jpg"><img class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-15569" alt="1545569_1435538563346548_805595201_n" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/1545569_1435538563346548_805595201_n-575x512.jpg" width="575" height="512" /></a></p>
<p><strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/setlife.magazine" target="_blank">SetLife Magazine on Facebook</a> | <a href="http://www.eoshd.com/content/11914/red-cameras-absent-oscar-cinematography-best-picture-nominees" target="_blank">Read Full EOSHD Article</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 20, 2014)

A C500, a couple of C300's....

HEY!!!! A GoPro made the list!!!!

But no iPhones....

I guess there is still some form of justice left in the world


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 20, 2014)

Zero to three mentions in no time at all, I'd be pretty happy if I was responsible for the way the Canon Cinema line is going so far.

Mind you they are spending a fortune pushing it.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Jan 20, 2014)

ARRI is not Canon's biggest obstacle. CANON is Canon's biggest obstacle. There is still a huge demand for film and Canon don't make any film cameras. it's that simple.


----------



## Lengai (Jan 20, 2014)

considering Hobbit, Iron Man 3, Transformers, Gone Girl, Pacific Rim and the recent release of Dragon, I'd say Red is firmly in there, just not at the oscars. Canon is not used as primary camera on any major film. 

It will be interesting to see how 4tvs change peoples mind set to shooting with Alexa or will we see a switch this year.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 20, 2014)

Instead of chasing ARRI maybe they could've charged forward with the little guy market they had created as best they could instead of purposely crippling the abilities and usability features of all their DSLR camaeras. They could've had that dominated beyond dominated, but instead as soon as they realize they had something, they tried to cripple it, move stuff up in price and play market segment games and as of now, at least, are just another high-priced also ran.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Instead of chasing ARRI maybe they could've charged forward with the little guy market they had created as best they could instead of purposely crippling the abilities and usability features of all their DSLR camaeras. They could've had that dominated beyond dominated, but instead as soon as they realize they had something, they tried to cripple it, move stuff up in price and play market segment games and as of now, at least, are just another high-priced also ran.



No, if that was their plan Magic Lantern would be buried under a sea of cease and desist notices.


----------



## jrista (Jan 20, 2014)

lonelywhitelights said:


> ARRI is not Canon's biggest obstacle. CANON is Canon's biggest obstacle. There is still a huge demand for film and Canon don't make any film cameras. it's that simple.



The future isn't film, though...and digital is rapidly gaining ground on film. Canon would have to shift resources from digital cinema to film in order to build up a product line and gain a presence...in a market that will decline in the long term. Not really a wise move. I think Canon has it right, building up a presence in digital cinema.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 20, 2014)

Risking another Wintel-vs-DEC-HP-Sun-etc comparison - getting into movie makers' minds & hearts (read: familiar with and appreciative of the product) before they have money to spend is a great way to make them prefer it when they do have it.

Canon would still need to develop properly spec-ed cameras & lenses for the right price, of course.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 20, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Instead of chasing ARRI maybe they could've charged forward with the little guy market they had created as best they could instead of purposely crippling the abilities and usability features of all their DSLR camaeras. They could've had that dominated beyond dominated, but instead as soon as they realize they had something, they tried to cripple it, move stuff up in price and play market segment games and as of now, at least, are just another high-priced also ran.



I agree. There are better ways to differentiate between models in a tiered marketing scheme, primarily based on physical aspects. For example, the xxxD range is not weather-sealed, but the xxD and xD is; or the xxxD range has one SD slot, whereas the xD range has dual CF slots; or the number and accuracy of the focus points; and so on. But deliberately crippling abilities through firmware ... in my opinion MagicLantern should never exist.



privatebydesign said:


> No, if that was their plan Magic Lantern would be buried under a sea of cease and desist notices.



Modifying something you own is not illegal.


*Back to the topic* ... This clearly shows that all these movie features in DSLR's are only an interim tool for most serious movie-makers, i.e. a cheaper option for students. As soon as they graduate and start making real movies, they use real movie cameras.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 20, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> *Back to the topic* ... This clearly shows that all these movie features in DSLR's are only an interim tool for most serious movie-makers, i.e. a cheaper option for students. As soon as they graduate and start making real movies, they use real movie cameras.



And it would be to Canon's benefit if those real movie cameras are Canon's as well - people prefer to work with familiar brands.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 20, 2014)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> And it would be to Canon's benefit if those real movie cameras are Canon's as well - people prefer to work with familiar brands.



True, which is why Canon should stop trying to make DSLR's into movie cameras and just make a cheaper, true video camera that accepts EF lenses ... something like a *C300 lite*. Students can then buy these and will prefer using the "professional" versions once working for Universal Studios.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 20, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > And it would be to Canon's benefit if those real movie cameras are Canon's as well - people prefer to work with familiar brands.
> ...



On the other hand, a friend of mine shoots video with 5Dmk2s & mk3s, because that's what his stills-shooting friends have. Along the way he gets to know lenses that impress him, e.g. Sigma 12-24mm, which he liked for how wide it was, and the TS-E 24mm mk2, which he liked for it's colors. He now plans on buying a 5Dmk2 or mk3.


----------



## Fuzzy Caveman (Jan 20, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > No, if that was their plan Magic Lantern would be buried under a sea of cease and desist notices.
> ...



Doesn't matter if it's legal or not. Canon has enough money to troll them into the ground using legal fees at the courthouse.


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 20, 2014)

thanks for this post, it is amazing but I think it is all about politics and budget reason.
who will use a lowly Canon or sony when they can afford Alexa?

but why is there no Red in the list?
any way, great info, thanks.


----------



## Sella174 (Jan 20, 2014)

Fuzzy Caveman said:


> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Funny legal system you have there.

In comparison, over here in South Africa, the courts have the sanction to award extreme compensation to the defendant on the grounds of malicious action on the part of the applicant. So, as my father always says: "Sue me, I can use the money."


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 20, 2014)

dilbert said:


> What will it take for Canon to have a chance of overcoming ARRI?
> 
> Well first they'll need to deliver a sensor that has more than 14 stops of DR or least that of the D800.



Trying not to open a can of worms...

As someone noted in the video, Canon could be targeting a different market.

E.g. DPAF and STM shows Canon aims for a lower end market, e.g. parents making videos of toddlers, where people will not follow focus manually. This is not to say I think those technologies work perfectly, only that it tells about a market Canon aims for.

On the other hand, Canon has released cinema cameras with PL mount, and I think Canon would need a better sensor in that market.

So far it seems (at least to me) Canon has made a good compromise, but if it doesn't release sensors with better IQ in the near future, my guess is sales will suffer.


----------



## Niki (Jan 20, 2014)

Lengai said:


> considering Hobbit, Iron Man 3, Transformers, Gone Girl, Pacific Rim and the recent release of Dragon, I'd say Red is firmly in there, just not at the oscars. Canon is not used as primary camera on any major film.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how 4tvs change peoples mind set to shooting with Alexa or will we see a switch this year.


alexa over red
kodak 35mm overall


----------



## Niki (Jan 20, 2014)

lonelywhitelights said:



> ARRI is not Canon's biggest obstacle. CANON is Canon's biggest obstacle. There is still a huge demand for film and Canon don't make any film cameras. it's that simple.



yeap….!


----------



## Niki (Jan 20, 2014)

jrista said:


> lonelywhitelights said:
> 
> 
> > ARRI is not Canon's biggest obstacle. CANON is Canon's biggest obstacle. There is still a huge demand for film and Canon don't make any film cameras. it's that simple.
> ...



in between all the digital cameras they were to release one FILM CAMERA…WHAT A SURPRISE AND WHAT SALES!!


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jan 20, 2014)

The TV market is where money is made, and Canon is doing pretty well there. 

http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/Canon-C300-tops-list-of-most-popular-rental-cameras-_nid-2498.html

But for the high end market, the c500 isn't really in the mix.


----------



## that1guyy (Jan 20, 2014)

As to the title of this thread, NO.

Canon's Cinema line is not in the same league as an Arri cam. Most probably the Canons were used for the quick shots where there was a danger of the camera being destroyed. Since the Canons are so small, they can be strapped to cars and other vehicles unlike the huge Arri cameras.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 21, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of chasing ARRI maybe they could've charged forward with the little guy market they had created as best they could instead of purposely crippling the abilities and usability features of all their DSLR camaeras. They could've had that dominated beyond dominated, but instead as soon as they realize they had something, they tried to cripple it, move stuff up in price and play market segment games and as of now, at least, are just another high-priced also ran.
> ...



There is nothing illegal about Magic Lantern though so they really couldn't stop them and the outcry would be terrible were they to try to bury them in frivolous notices.

I suppose they could decide to lock the firmware down from now on though and make it awfully hard for it to work in the future.

But anyway it clearly is the plan as ML shows just how much performance they leave on the table. The 5D3 hardware is capable of delivering far more than it does as shipped (and there was no knowing that ML would ever unlock the key stuff) and leaving the usability features to sort or working ML hacks isn't exactly reaching after a market with best effort.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 21, 2014)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Risking another Wintel-vs-DEC-HP-Sun-etc comparison - getting into movie makers' minds & hearts (read: familiar with and appreciative of the product) before they have money to spend is a great way to make them prefer it when they do have it.
> 
> Canon would still need to develop properly spec-ed cameras & lenses for the right price, of course.



Although actually I'm not sure that works quite so much for the movie world does it? They seem to be far less fanboyish than stills shooters and very practical just give me what I need whatever the heck it's called no? Maybe I'm wrong, some stuff does seem to be pretty entrenched, but that seems to be how they talk and react about all the new digital stuff. It seemed like some who were crazy over the 5D2 suddenly turned on the 5D3 when it didn't deliver all the new stuff they had hoped for and moved along without a second thought, very much unlike the still shooting crowd. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 21, 2014)

that1guyy said:


> As to the title of this thread, NO.
> 
> Canon's Cinema line is not in the same league as an Arri cam. Most probably the Canons were used for the quick shots where there was a danger of the camera being destroyed. Since the Canons are so small, they can be strapped to cars and other vehicles unlike the huge Arri cameras.


And some of the footage in Captain Phillips was shot on a GoPro.....

You can mount a GoPro almost anywhere and have it almost invisible.... you can mount it on the bottom of a quadricopter.... you can strap it onto someone for the view as they jump through a hatch or into the ocean... very hard to do with a $250,000 camera.... and if you break one, it's $249,700 cheaper to replace....


----------



## Vidrios (Jan 21, 2014)

First off for those of you who are saying Canon needs to stop with the whole DSLR for movies thing. That was not Canon's idea. Larry Thorpe, Imaging Guru for Canon, never ever intended the 5d Mark 2 for movies. People still use them. But that's a different topic. 
Ok here are the tiers that need to be conquered before we get to Arri: 
1. 4k - The C500 requires some sort of external recorder for 4k. RED's been doing it a long time and IN CAMERA! The Sony F55 can at least do it internally. Yes it's compressed, but you can do slow motion internally as well on the F55. You can't do that with the C500. 
2. The Cinema EOS Line works great in the HD world, but is wildy over priced for what they do. The C100 should've never been invented (before you attack me I bought one so don't hate haha). The C500 and C300 should've just been one camera that can shoot 4k and a C300 like camera should've been at the C100's price point where you can at least shoot on proper CF Cards and not annoying AVCHD with an HDMI cable (I miss HDSDI)
3. The F55 with an external recorder can give you at least 16 bit linear RAW which destroys what can come out of the C500. Not to mention the lovely 240 fps that camera can do. The RED Dragon can do 6k (True 4k...almost) and internally and shooting 5k, 4k, 3k, 2k, 1080p (junk on the RED but oh well). And up to 300 fps on the RED. 
4. Canon has to compete with all that before we even touch Arri who is the established juggernaut in the industry. Personally there is one camera the will wipe the floor in terms of resolution and the ONLY TRUE 4K camera on the market - the Sony F65. That camera is actually 8k ready. Just wait. It's still in its infancy shooting movies like Oblivion and After Earth (terrible). But check this out https://vimeo.com/81600295 (I can tell you right now if Belle isn't up for next year's Oscars they're crazy, not just for the cinematography, but the amazing story). 
5. Canon's low light performance is really well implemented in all three cinema EOS cameras (No I'm not including the 1DC because I'm not a fan of the video on it nor its highly compressed 4k, but it's decent, not worth $12k though). 

There are films using the C500 as B cams, but as A cams you do have short features such as this lovely one shot by Edoardo Ponti(Son of Sofia Loren) https://vimeo.com/81420176 (Human Voice) shot in 2k because they would rather have 12 bit 2k flexibility in post than 10 bit 4k (not work $22,000). 

Anyway I'm a HUGE fan of Larry Thorpe, I think that as Canon enters the Cinema realm they've only just begun so it'll be interesting to see what lovely cameras are coming in the future.


----------



## sanj (Jan 21, 2014)

lonelywhitelights said:


> ARRI is not Canon's biggest obstacle. CANON is Canon's biggest obstacle. There is still a huge demand for film and Canon don't make any film cameras. it's that simple.



Hahahahahaha


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 21, 2014)

dilbert said:


> DPAF and STM are for DSLRs, not cinema cameras.



DSLRs are a lower market than cinema cameras.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 21, 2014)

Arri have been in the movie business since the 1930s they have developed a "system" something neither Red or Canon have completed yet. Arri have made their camera "simple" to operate by comparison Canon & Sony have far too many controls & functions which are not really required and slow you down on-set. Red is better but not as good as Arri. 
Canon cameras like Sony are only 16x9 and dont suit anamorphic whereas the Alexa 4:3 does (they also have a 16x9 sensor) and even the Red Epic has a bigger sensor (although still crops for anamorphic)
BUT everyone is obsesssed with the camera when the real difference is also lenses Canon do not make lenses to the standard of Zeiss, Cookes, Panavision, Angenieux, Hawk or even Fujinon and the newer lenses Panavision have produced will raise the bar again. And they dont make anamorphic lenses like Panavision, Hawk and now Zeiss, Cookes and Servicevision. 
Dont get me wrong Canon learnt from the 5dMKII and from Red and for the first cameras out of the block and the fact its a vertically intergrated company means it can go further and will. 
However Arri will not give their crown up easily and Red have recently launched the Epic Dragon with Panavision soon to re-enter the camera fray they are against different competitors than Nikon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 22, 2014)

Vidrios said:


> First off for those of you who are saying Canon needs to stop with the whole DSLR for movies thing. That was not Canon's idea. Larry Thorpe, Imaging Guru for Canon, never ever intended the 5d Mark 2 for movies. People still use them. But that's a different topic.



Who is saying they need to stop with that? Some were saying they should have done MORE with that. I don't see how L.T. has any great insight if he is the one who thought the 5D2 didn't even need to ship with manual control enabled for video because just a few run and gun PJs would use it. How short-sighted can you get? The second the no M was seen a press release every forum went crazy. How could you not foresee that?

It seemed to me that had a big splash down at that level and coulda really run with that full charge ahead instead of instantly going to dribble it out, slow down, cripple it, try to price it higher, market segment to infinity, the second they saw they might have something.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 22, 2014)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > DPAF and STM are for DSLRs, not cinema cameras.
> ...


Autofocus is not for cinema cameras, just about everything is done in manual. DPAF and STM are for autofocus, therefore DPAF and STM are not for cinema cameras....


----------



## jiphoto (Jan 22, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I agree that AF is not a standard/to-be-expected cinema camera feature. I personally would not think of using it regularly, as MF is so much better for my uses. However, Canon recently announced that the C100 can be upgraded with DPAF (beginning in about a month I think). Even though AF is probably not utilized for professional productions, it is an option for the cheapest _cinema-_dedicated camera. If Canon thinks that it's worth giving a DPAF upgrade option, they must think there's a market for it.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jan 23, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



My point exactly - DPAF & STM are for the lower end of the two markets.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 23, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Fuzzy Caveman said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



You are right, it is a funny excuse for justice. In the US pretty much any decent sized corporation has a big enough legal department to destroy an operation like ML, not putting ML down one iota, but they know, for instance, not to touch the C line firmware. It has nothing to do with "modifying something you own" and to say that displays a chronic naivety of the way the US legal system "works". 

I have said it before but I think ML and Canon have a symbiotic relationship that came about in a serendipitous way. Canon have benefited from ML's work, the 5D became a cult camera not least because of ML, their continued "tinkering" is accepted by Canon as the price for that indie film makers niche, which they are happy to profit from, Canon could close them out of the firmware without too much difficulty, but have chosen, even with new releases of non C cameras, not to. Similarly the bad publicity of Canon closing down ML is just not worth it, and it wouldn't result in any additional camera sales.

I believe there is a similar situation with Yongnuo, though punishing Chinese companies through legal means that do mail order from trading zones in mainland China is much more difficult. Yongnuo have cracked the RT protocol, they have even added functionality Canon artificially reserved for post 2012 cameras into pre 2012 cameras and even third party cameras. What result does this have for Canon? They sell more 600 EX-RT's. Heck it wouldn't surprise me if there was a "deal" between Canon and Yongnuo to delay the YN-600-RT for a few months as the cost for loss of sales of the 600-EX-RT once the YN-600-RT comes out.

But, surprise surprise, the bottom line in all situations is more camera sales for Canon.


----------



## flowers (Jan 28, 2014)

*True. Canon expressed "support" for ML*



privatebydesign said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of chasing ARRI maybe they could've charged forward with the little guy market they had created as best they could instead of purposely crippling the abilities and usability features of all their DSLR camaeras. They could've had that dominated beyond dominated, but instead as soon as they realize they had something, they tried to cripple it, move stuff up in price and play market segment games and as of now, at least, are just another high-priced also ran.
> ...



Canon replied the question about ML voiding the warranty by saying (paraphrased): "Installing third-party firmware on top of Canon firmware does not void the warranty. The warranty is only voided if it can be shown that the malfunction to be repaired under warranty was directly caused by the third-party firmware."

That's a pretty vocal word of support from Canon for users of ML. I think the way ML works suits Canon just fine, it doesn't threaten their higher-end models, because most people will still rather pay more for their cinema models rather than risk damaging their camera, and if Canon gets their lower end cameras into Hollywood, what better advertisement for their suitability for professional video than that. It's a win-win for Canon, they have nothing to worry about.

Overpriced Arri isn't Canon's biggest competitor in the cinema market, RED is. Used RED Ones and new Scarlets are direct competition to Canon, they're also digital and in the same price bracket.


----------



## mkabi (Jan 30, 2014)

Anybody watch the Wolf of Wallstreet?
Can anyone tell me what camera was used when they slow-moed the part where Jonah Hill was going to go off after the quaylude took effect during pool party. Just before he starts to jerk off in front of the blonde. 

Epic movie by the way.


----------

