25+ years experience as DP, editor, colorist and vfx artist.
I really disagree unless you have a pretty low end processor for that era. my 4.1 mac tower with 2X4 2.8ghz zenons does ok with canon h.264 in prem pro. having enough ram, fast drives and a good GPU are all part of the equation and if they all aren't up to speed, then you won't have a good experience on older gear.
proxy workflow on most systems is just a total minefield of problems. if you have never had to manually relink hundreds of clips, you won't understand that proxy workflow is pretty much to be avoided at all costs. there are just too many things that go wrong that can cost days of work to correct.
One of the huge pitfalls is if you don't pre-process your canon DSLR footage thru QTchange. QTchange will write into the mov file a reel name and set the clip TC = to creation time (ToD). thats a HUGE help when you have multiple dslr clips from _different_ cameras and they have the same names because some on thought it would be a good idea to match all the cameras together on a shoot… or you are a busy post place and simply wind up with dupe names because of all the material coming thru.
This can also happen when you clipwrap MXF media into individual new MOV's. Since MXF just names clips Clip_001 ect its very easy to have a dozen clips of the same name. going back to relink to that can be a total utter nightmare if you did not first clipwrap all the media to individual files, and at the very least then bulk rename a cards set of files with at least something like Cam1_Card1_ClipXXXX ( adobe bridge has a great rename utility BTW )… and then maybe still use QTchange to insert matching reel names directly into the files.
if you don't actively do this sort of work up front and just transcode everything to proxy files, your match back will be one of the most miserable post experiences imaginable… and VERY profitable for me to fix your problems
ISO 320 ? thats pretty much a deal killer right there. most features shooting film are ISO 500 & 800. canon C series are 850 - C500, F5 & FS7 ? a crazy ISO 2000. so really… I'm still using lights with the new cameras, just an awful lot less in terms of levels, all LED & HMI, and using more passive controls like silks, nets & solids which use no power :) so unless they can get a ISO 800 out of the camera thats acceptable not sure this camera has a market….
Having actually shot 16 and 35….. Film requires discipline to shoot - from buying it and keeping it safe from hi temps, loading mags, loading the camera, unloading mags and processing. A lot of careful attention goes into handling. Because it is expensive to shoot, you spend more time rehearsing shots, playing around with blocking ect before you roll the first take. With video its easy to just shoot everything, instead of just rolling on a couple good takes after pre production rehearsals and on set rehersals. with film you respect the medium more. you check the gate, lens ect, after every take. Sure production is a bit slower, but its more thoughtful too. The problem with video is that while you can shoot in a more deliberate way, most people don't. With film you have to have a higher skill level because the price of mistakes is much higher than blowing a take on video. Film simply forces everyone on set to be more focused.
That said, I also don't miss all the downsides and costs of film. I enjoyed the more intentional approach used in it that seems a bit lacking in video. So if anything, I'd like to see more thoughtful production done. With film you either got your light levels right or you got junk back. With the latest crop of digital cameras people seem to take a lot less time lighting, if at all. Now while I love to work more towards available light and supplement it as needed, I wouldn't work without lighting, or just bouncing a light to boost levels a bit. video encourages spray and pray shooting which is sad. just because you can roll for 30 minutes at a time doesn't mean you should. I'm all about keeping your shooting ratios reasonable because who wants to wade thru all the junk when editing. it turns post into a nightmare of takes where often you look at take #3 and #10 and go "whats the difference between the two ? "….
I *really*, no **REALLY** wish some of these early test videos from any camera would stop slapping film convert or similar onto their shots. when you do this people can't really judge or see how the camera is rendering images. I got it you shot in Slog, but often all that you need is a basic S curve correction to bring the image to a more or less neutral tonal range. Its ok to mess up exposure because you may learn more from that then "perfect" exposure. You get to see how the camera handles more extremes in the image and if they are savable or not. In fact a split screen of neutralized vs looked would be ok too…. maybe a slight rant but when everyone slaps film convert onto these videos they often all wind up looking very much the same for better or worse and the differences between cameras is reduced. It really makes comparisons of cameras far less useful if you can't really see what the camera is doing.
I suppose in some respects thats a compliment to various camera makers that their gear has gotten that good but it would be nice to see the nuances better between cameras…and if they make a difference or not.
Of course comments about noise here - film convert adds grain so in some respects you are defeating the purpose of doing a video like this to show the camera's native noise level. That said, vimeo and YT compression often reduce and flatten this fine detail out in compression.