Looks like the prcie will be more - at 20,000 dollars - delivery from end of January.

Peter

Ok, so we have:

-Canon C300 at $16k. Can shoot 50Mbps but only film-style. SDI out won't get you 444 or more stops.

-Sony F3 at $16k, 35Mbps. Add $2k for a KiPro are you're BBC ready and beyond. You CAN shoot Run and Gun. NDs included. Add S-Log and you get the closest there is to an ALEXA.


No camera is an island but a system. Given than you need plenty of stuff besides the camera body (DSLR/PL lenses, Sachtler, Mattebox+NDs, mics+transmitters...etc), the additional $2K for the KiPro or Pix240 hardly make any difference in the overall amount.

With the C300 you're painted into a corner. The F3 is on the other hand 3 cameras in one. I still don't get it.

Well, thats how I'm seeing it; it looks to me like Canon is targeting the TV market first (maybe a more cinema orientated camera will be in the next cycle).

External recorders are great in that they bring out the best in the camera (I use a nanoflash all the time), but at the end of the day its one more thing that needs power, more cables, something else to be looking at, something else to go wrong etc etc.

The F3 was crippled, purposely, by its lousy codec. Thats not a problem if you're shooting film, and you have time to mess around with all the paraphernalia hanging off the camera. For TV (and especially for running and gunning) the stronger inbuilt codec will be much appreciated by cameramen.

I reckon it will do well, but more so in TV than in film.

ISO 640 at 0db, according to Larry Thorpe

(still at Paramount here)

But the Canon has LOG recording built in - so we might see 'Alexa-ish' images from it anyway.

Alexa's prores 12-bit 330 Mbps is in an entirely different league than the C300's MPEG-2 8-bit 50Mbps.

Alexa's prores 12-bit 330 Mbps is in an entirely different league than the C300's MPEG-2 8-bit 50Mbps.

Of course, but if the DR, colour and tonality from the Canon allow us to get 'Alexa-ish' images (like the SLOGged F3 does. Then that's a great thing.

No one's expecting an Alexa-beater (or even matcher) at this pricepoint.

Good but not that good.

Looks like 12 stops with Canon log.

Now they're talking about 20.000 dollars list price.
What is Canon smoking?

I saw an MX RED One going for 13.500 dollars last week at Reduser.

Still holding out for the Scarlet...

Thanks Chris for the hard work, hope your having fun.

I think that it may take time to ingest the abilities (or lack of) of this new breed. My initial thoughts are a little dissapointed as this appears to be a camera for a crew of people and I will probably never have that. It appears to target a very small group of potential customers. I am not sure what makes this a historical global announcement, but you would have to ask those that are proficient with a tool of this type to get a proper response.



Chris, How do you feel about this camera ??

"Hard to choose between this and the Alexa (vincent)"

Sure, a 30fps 8bit 50Mbps pseudo-DSLR VS a 120fps 12bit 4444Prores/ARRIRAW and VERY reliable camera with the best latitude ever seen from a digital unit.

One thing is to be enthusiastic and on the payroll, another is to say such nonsenses. There was no need to make such a silly comparison and descredit yourself at the same time.

I want to see some footage from it before I make any judgements.

I recommend everyone else do the same.

Canon could have really pulled out an ace here but I'd call this a 7 of Clubs.

LOL That is right on the mark.

I wish Canon had seen this as an opportunity to one-up the F3 by recording 10bit internally. Even to MPEG2 50mbit, if it had to be.

That alone would justify the price premium.

I want to see some footage from it before I make any judgements.

I recommend everyone else do the same.

I'm sure it's beautiful, and the camera will be able to make amazing images.

But some of the shortcomings are known quantities.

You can watch Vincent Laforet's short film 'Mobius' shot on the C300 here:

Mobius on Vimeo

Quite frankly, the image looks superb. And seems to handle what must have been a very contrasty daylight extremely well.

The $20k price tag is genuinely surprising (and disappointing) though. I wonder what the lenses will come in at?

Hyped as a dream, but delivered as a nightmare. I'm walking toward the ocean......

Canon has revealed the identity of the "second shooter":

Canon Global : News | News Releases (http://www.canon.com/news/2011/nov04e04.html)

i have been wondering if re arranging these color wells into a super pixel that reads out at the 1920 x 1080 is possible on my 5D, which seems to have a lot more pixels in the stills than the video. i wrote magic lantern last night and suggested it as a possible hack.

i don't know a lot about this stuff and could as usual be very wrong. appreciate any thoughts. it might seem off topic but it might be this is whats behind this c300.

aloha
tito

I fully expect the quality of the pictures to be very good - at the price they had better be!

But for that price I'd expect more. Not just great images when correctly exposed and colour balanced, but with flexibility, the ability to grade etc. That really means RAW, or S-log at the very least, and they need high bitdepths to be effective. And given it's a 4k chip, at this price I'd expect to be able to get the 4k resolution for recording.

Let's see what Red have to offer......

at this price I'd expect to be able to get the 4k resolution for recording.

Let's see what Red have to offer......

It will be superior on paper, flawed in execution, and 9 months late.

WOW!!!

I totally expected to be annoyed by all the fanboys, but it seems almost everyone is extremely disappointed in the C300. Canon's marketing department should be fired for creating all this hype when there is nothing special about the camera. At the least, they should have shown a mockup of the body so people would have had some sense of where they were going. This camera is more like a Red Epic in that it requires a lot of accessories for decent ergonomics; thus, the total package costs far more than just the body.

Their log gamma is not any better than the F3 with Hyper/Cine-gamma because they are limited to how much DR can be squeezed into an 8 bit codec (appx. 11-12 stops).

I also think that Canon really messed up with the price and peoples' desire to use their EF lenses. If people have been accustomed to the low quality and low price of DSLRs, then why would they want to spend over 8 times as much (ie. 7D) just to use EF lenses? Most of these people are very price conscious; so, the $16k seems astronomical to the $1800 of a 7D.

Canon's specs here:

Canon U.S.A. : Professional Imaging Products : EOS C300 PL (http://usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c300_pl#Specifications)

It's hard to tell from this Laforet short, but taking into account how Vimeo compresses stuff, looks like the F3 with S-Log handles better the highlights and has more latitude than the C300. That is specially evident in some of the high contrast scenes in the C300 movie, where there's plenty of noise in the shadows.

That's not surprising considering the C300 appears to be 8bit@50Mbps while the F3 outputs uncompressed RGB at 10 bit through dual link.


At $20k I fail to see how this new Canon C300 can compete with the F3.

i have been wondering if re arranging these color wells into a super pixel that reads out at the 1920 x 1080 is possible on my 5D, which seems to have a lot more pixels in the stills than the video. i wrote magic lantern last night and suggested it as a possible hack.

i don't know a lot about this stuff and could as usual be very wrong. appreciate any thoughts. it might seem off topic but it might be this is whats behind this c300.
Sorry - but no. It's the fact that the sensor dimensions are exactly 2x 1920x1080 that makes it possible to read it simply and effectively the way they do in the C300. In the cases of DSLRs, the numbers don't work so well - they aren't an exact multiple of 1920x1080. I wrote about such in this topic - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/501724-canon-usa-introduces-eos-1d-x-digital-slr-camera-2.html#post1689657
It may not be necessary to do a full deBayer/downconvert (difficult to do well) *IF* the number of photosites are chosen carefully - and that means being in an exact multiple of 1920x1080. The issues with pevious DSLRs and the AF100 is that this hasn't been the case in those cameras - the sensors were designed just with stills in mind, and compromises made for video.

Hence optimum numbers would be 3840x2160 (2x), 5760x3240 (3x) etc. Total photosite numbers would then be 4x, 9x, 16x etc greater than 1920x1080. In other words - 8 megapixel, 18 megapixel, 32 megapixel etc. Now, what is this new Canon - hmmm, 18 megapixel.......?? Let's see if it's actually 5760x3240.

The principle is that you take a square of photosites (2x2, 3x3, 4x4 etc) and just extract the red, green blue values straight from the corresponding photosites. Each case gives full 1080p resolution with relatively simple processing..


Typical for a stills sensor might be to do it similarly to how the C300 does it, but need to miss blocks out, so only read the photosites below in bold, deriving one "output pixel" from each block of 16:

G R G R
B G B G

That would be OK if the sensor dimensions were 7680x4320 (4x 1920x1080) - but still sensors are less than that. Hence why the resolution tends to be more like 1200 horizontally - the sensor dimensions are more typically likely to be 4800 horizontally. This then gets scaled up to 1920x1080 for recording. It's easier to scale up than scale down.

It will be superior on paper, flawed in execution, and 9 months late.
They reckon it will ship on December 1st, for US$9,750.

ISO 20,000 sounds interesting

The 8-bit capture and limited frame rates leave me scratching my head. It could be a nice cam for TV production that has a straight-ahead style. It's definitely not made for pushing creative limits.

The new EF-mount Cine primes look nice.

And RED just announced the Scarlet with 4K recording, RAW, 35mm sensor at 10.000 dollars.

Game changer? Hmm. Well, as was coined on another list,
Today (before the announcement) we bitch, moan and flame.
After, we bitch moan and flame.

I guess he knew what was coming from Canon.
and yes, I will now bitch, moan and flame.

Bitch:
No 4K.
No 1080P@60.
No 4:4:4.
No RAW.
No global shutter

Moan:
50mbps?

Flame
$16K?!!! Maybe if the lens is as good as a Cooke or DP Rouge (yeah, right).

THREE YEARS AGO WHEN ASKED, had it been delivered it would have been a game changer.
Now its a flame maker, and believe me, I hope I am SO WRONG that I am flamed to a cinder.
__________________

At that price this Canon cinema cam is not really intended for solo shooters, but multiple sales to TV networks and Film outfits.

IMO the price allows Canon dealers to negotiate for sales in various quantities, 4 or 5 or more will easily come at below 10K.

I wonder if RED has room to move like that .. but then Scarlet is intended to sell as one off sales.

Cheers.

I want to see some footage from it before I make any judgements.

I recommend everyone else do the same.

My buddy Jeremiah was there, and he said the footage was fantastic.

heath

For that kinda bread, it better look good - then drive you home afterwards.

I don't know you guys...

I left film school 20 years ago and wanted to buy a broadcast quality camera. The starting point and only option was a Sony betacam (or film). I think it was around 70k. I couldn't even think of buying one. And never mind the cost of the decks to edit tapes (yes... big friggin' coffee table sized tapes).

I just looked at my receipt from June of 2006 for an XLH1 at 12k pus change... and yet I happily paid that. The camera has worked well for over 5 years, and still does what I need for most of my clients...

Then the 5d comes along in june 2009 at 3.5k for the body. 2 1/2 years and 17,000 clips later. I still love this camera. A few drawvbacks and weaknesses... sure but a ground-breaking camera, and nothings perfect.

Yesterday I shot for the first time with a Red Epic... I have a chance over the next couple of weeks to shoot some more... It is freaking awesome. Fortunately I didn't have to buy it... about the price of the Betacam when you add the necessities...

My point... We should be dancing for joy to have so many great, affordable options. This is a phenomenal time to be a film-maker.

If you don't like it, don't buy it... buy or rent something else, and wait for the next round... it'll be here soon enough...

And RED just announced the Scarlet with 4K recording, RAW, 35mm sensor at 10.000 dollars.

Well, more like $14k in practise for a Canon AI package.

Film & Digital Times has an article, with comments by people who have shot with the C300.

http://www.fdtimes.com/news/canon/canon-c300/

It's been a while since i've been on dvinfo, about time to get back in.

I'm very surprised by the reaction, how bad it's been. Reading through the info on canons site (very technical and very comprehensive) i think they've done a stellar job, look:

- it's 1080p of *real* pixels. (4 pixels sampled down to one). The F3 aliases and moires, this isn't supposed to
- The 8bit can hold the log information for 12bits, not quite RAW but for a file size/file info tradeoff this is pretty good for 99% of situations
- 50mbs of 4:2:2 is actually pretty good. It does depend on how good their compression is. The sony 35mbs XDCAM compression is really pretty good. So this could be better than that
- The form factor actually reads as being quite balanced and well thought out

I think it could be an excellent work horse camera and a real contender.

The only thing so far i don't like about it is that the mount distance is SLR ranges. Where as the F3/FS100 have the shorter flange distance that allows you to adapt rangefinder and all sorts of weird and wonderful vintage glass (which i have drawers of). So for me that's a downside.

I am a bit of a sony fanboy as i have invested in the NEX stills at the expensive of my canon gear. The FS100/F3 are the obvious choices but would like something in-between them. The FS100 doesn't have log or 10bit out - that's my main issue with that.

But as we decide what to get next, it's a contender.

Obviously i want to see real world original footage from all of the contenders but with the 4k -> 1080p downsample this should produce stellar images.

I have no interest in working at 4k to be honest. Too much overhead. None of the delivery requirements are 4k anyway. Heck features were happily shot with the 720p varicam not so long ago!

cheers
paul

This camera is very interesting to me and I too am surprised that so many have written it off - so soon (less than 24hrs!)

Sure, it's out of my price range (thankfully - so that's one decision I don't have to agonise over!) but what interests me most of all is what video related features MIGHT (and I stress might) see their way into a relatively attainable Canon 5DMkIII when that eventually appears.

- The 8bit can hold the log information for 12bits, not quite RAW but for a file size/file info tradeoff this is pretty good for 99% of situations
I don't think that's true. 8 bit is more than enough for general acquisition - but not if you want to get heavily into extensive grading in post. You can squeeze a 12 bit scene into a 8 bit recording (by compressing highlights and lowlights) but it's a one way process - once it's done, it's done. Record the full 12 bit resolution and you have the option of later deciding exactly how you want the transfer charecteristic to be.
- 50mbs of 4:2:2 is actually pretty good. It does depend on how good their compression is. The sony 35mbs XDCAM compression is really pretty good. So this could be better than that
The codec is a full broadcast codec for general television acquisition. That's as defined by the EBU. That is NOT to say it can't be better - and the argument is that for such as feature film work, with the desirability of very extensive post grading you are not talking about "general acquisition".

If you're working on a broadcast show with pretty tight turn round, this codec is fine. Something like RAW is likely to simply add too many delays in the workflow. Ideally, I'd like to have the option of both in a camera like this.
I have no interest in working at 4k to be honest. Too much overhead. None of the delivery requirements are 4k anyway.
Maybe - but a camera may be expected to last a number of years. Who's to say things won't change within the lifetime of the camera? And even if no requirement to deliver in 4k, it gives a lot of room for manoeuvre, especially with such as green screen etc, even post panning/zooming.

At the end of the day it's a question of price/performance. This camera may be just what some people want - but the feeling is it's a lot of money. Equally, others may be happy with the price, but expect to get more for the money. Cue Red comparisons..... :-)

Maybe we need to see what the street price settles at?

Well, well, well....I woke up early....I can't get these pictures out of my head. WOW! The footage looked extremely good on all 4 films we saw. The DPs shot them in ISOs between 500 and 4000! They mostly agreed that the camera's ASA was around 500-600...They all mentioned fondly about how many set ups they did per day and how little light they used. I was surrounded by DPs (ASC,SOC,etc) and all seemed to really like the colors the camera put out. After the screenings & speeches, we moved to 2 large sound stages where Canon had set out the cameras naked or completely rigged out with various manufacturer's accessories. You can shoot footage on a low-lit set with various set ups and, at another station, go through the post process. For the people coming later today & tomorrow, it will be quite a presentation and you won't be disappointed.

As for some of the posters not happy with what they have been reading so far (you'd be happier if you saw the footage projected on a very large screen)....the price is $20K LIST, so the map or street price will be less (we should know that soon). I don't think Canon ever had any intention of putting out a $5000 camera. It was more like taking on the F3 but doing it better(Full camera remote control wirelessly through your iPad)....again, the colors just looked better than the Sony look and I think you can link that to the 4K sensor. As for auto focus, no one shoots a narrative piece with auto focus so I'm not sure why the complaints. This camera, like the 5D,7D, etc, are not for run & gun, sports, etc...its for set up shots.

More thoughts from the people who see it & the shooters who worked with it will come out in the following days. I believe this camera will do quite well....and this is just the first 2!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

ps- C300 delivery latter part of Jan., C300PL in March

Oh, did happen to say the footage really looked AMAZING!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

You've got to love dvinfo. Martin Scorcese is really excited about
This camera, but
Wedding videographers are 'disappointed'.
Great to see canon throwing their
Hat in the motion picture ring.

I don't have anything constructive to add,
but like to type when I'm sad.

To the tune of Bohemian Rhapsody

The reason many are disapointed is not because it may or not be a fantastic ground breaking camera it may well be.

The camera does look like a great new entry into the world of professional film makers who have enough money to cover it.

The truth is most of us could probably stretch to it and max out a few credit cards and maybe miss a few mortgage payments. Anyway my idea of stretching to the limits is about £6000.

We all know a camera can be made with a good fixed lens for about £4000 We all know a stills camera can make a film camera with a NICE sensor for about £600.

We know if you take the nice lens away from the £4000 camera you have an even cheaper camera So we all understand that putting a 35mm sensor in a HD camera can't be that hard and can be done cheaply. We know Sony did this with their FS100 with no ND filters 8bit out one card box and also the FS100 did this with 8 bit out and a small sensor that neither fitted 16mm 2/3 or 35mm.

So the expectation was that logically someone could make a camera with 10 bit out ND filters with an S35mm sensor. Or even a sensor that could use 16mm or large sensor that could use stills lenses for about £4000 to £6000 price range

That was what I hoped was meant by something groundbreaking And although the C300 may very well be groundbreaking its out of my league as I can't afford it and even if I did stretch the limits I'd probably end up in the divorce courts with one very selfish *********** cited as the reason.

Did Canon know that people like me were hoping and expectations boosted to over excite levels so that some may give in and buy it even if they can't afford to. I guess one advantage is those who would have bought the Red or the F3 af100 fs100 have all been on hold waiting for Canons announcement so denying the other manufacturers sales. But meanwhile I and others have gone without a camera and waited for what? I think Canon should have been more forthcoming about who the camera was aimed at IE the F3 crowd.

So yes while it may be extraordinary it still keeps me out of the professional arena and the status quo remains unchanged. If I now buy an EX1 I know if I make a film I will be competing against those who will be using the C300 and unfortunatly in real world I will still be at a disadvantage. Many times on low budgets the look of a camera will determine how people will see it. That is why the camera makers have their professional division and consumer one. They know it.. I know it and thats why a price premium is paid.

So it's not so much is the camera good or bad its more the marketing strategy used.

It's not always the camera that's the limitation, in fact that's the easy bit.

Well looking at it logically

10 bit out Great for post
Large sensor Great for creating the film look and fewer lights
ND filters Great for getting a nice open iris for shallow depth of field

I guess you can make great films and use workarounds for cameras that don't have the above like

8bit out Make sure you need minimum colour correction
Small sensor Use a letus adapter
ND filters Use a mattebox

So really you can make great films without a camera that has ND filters Large sensor or only 8 bit. However didnt we have the disagreement where the letus cuts down the resolution etc. Oh well lets move on.

You could also expect a manufacturer to be able to build what the consumer wants.

Anyway all the negatives aside. I'm sure many of us are disapointed and had hoped for a nice printer.

Let's hope the good news turns out to be the sensor. From pricing Canon thinks it's best in class. It's a novel design that should be significantly sharper and have few artifacts than the F3. Do we know if the camera has an anti-aliasing filter? If it does it's likely considerably weaker than the F3.

The develop money apparently went to the sensor and form factor. With the electronic package being from the XF300 class. The question I guess is how well the sensor is expressed in the bit size and color space. On paper Canon could of made us pay more attention to the sensor with an increased file size. But they didn't want to spend the money to do that. I think if it went beyond 4:2:2 8 bit we would have more of a wait and see attitude.

But we assume that the major determinant of final quality if the compression and file size. While in fact there are still room for substantial improvement in capture.

I doubt Red has the ability to buy a sensor compared to the best Canon and Sony can make.

So it's not so much is the camera good or bad its more the marketing strategy used.
But how do you announce a new product?

If you just come out of the blue with "bang! look at these specs!" there'll be complaints of "but I only just got the xyz! why couldn't I have been given warning!" - if you announce "expect a new camera in 9 months time!" it gives your competitors time to get their act together with an effective counter before you get anything actually on sale. (As Sony did very effectively against the AF100.)

In that respect, a preliminary announcement a month or so before full details may be best marketing policy.

Whatever anybody thinks of the C300, I think the language used ("historic announcement" etc) was way over the top. It might have got attention this time round - I'm not sure it was clever in the long term.

It's not always the camera that's the limitation, in fact that's the easy bit.

Thank you Brian. And for your Many sensible contributions to this discussion.

Canon always gave the impression this was going to be a professional camera, so no surprise to see it priced As such. Those who talked themselves into believing they were going to get an alexa at a prosumer pricepoint have only themselves to blame.

You can't blame canon for the delusions across the blgosphere.

If you have the best glass but then later compress to a lower jpg, your glass advantage goes away.

Let's say Canon's new C300 sensor is one of the best, better than the one on the F3. But then again, if its output is cut down to 8bit 50Mbps, while the F3 gives you uncompressed RGB 444 at 10 bit though dual link SDI, guess which camera will have more latitude, less artifacts and better color reproduction.

That's the biggest let down of the C300. An 8bit camera doesn't make much sense these days, specially at a $20k price point.

So really you can make great films without a camera that has ND filters Large sensor or only 8 bit. However didnt we have the disagreement where the letus cuts down the resolution etc. Oh well lets move on.

You could also expect a manufacturer to be able to build what the consumer wants.

Anyway all the negatives aside. I'm sure many of us are disapointed and had hoped for a nice printer.

Yes, there are good feature films were made using 8 bit VX1000 mini DV cameras that received worldwide distribution. There are so many options now that you can use a wide range of cameras. I believe I mentioned that "Monsters" was shot using the 8 bit internal codec. The camera itself is only a small part, how good film will be is 80% decided before a frame is shot on the basis of the script, the cast and the crew.

You can shoot a good or even a great film with the C300 and there are a number of other S35mm sensor cameras that will allow you to do the same. You could record the 10 bit HD SDI output if you want.

How do you announce a new product?

Well
1) Wait until you're ready to launch then announce it
2) Pick your target audience to aim it at if you want to create an atmosphere of suspense.

I think what is clear is YES people were expecting a camera for about £4 to £7000 ish WHY Because the blurb said

Historic announcement... Ground breaking.... Blah Blah

The S35mm market has already been established and so we expected something historic and ground breaking and the marketing was seemingly aimed at all of us. So as the market already established with a clear king IE the Alexa and everyones level catered for all the way down through to the consumer it would have to be something that would change everything and as personally I couldn't see much they could do that would change everything as the F3 pretty much takes care of the lot My conclusion was that to be historic and groundbreaking it would have to mean it does what a camera like the F3 can do but at a FS100 price and logically why not Why could this not be done.

However mine and others conclusions although I think logical were fatally flawed as we were blindsided by a marketing campaign that effectively wasn't groundbreaking or historic it was actually an F3 competitor and while you can use the word historic in the context that Canon are new to the video camera sensor and new to this price point I dont think any of us consumers would see it that way. I also don't believe it is groundbreaking although it may be groundbreaking for canon.

However that aside I'm sure it is a great camera and will do well in the market Just that I am a little disapointed at the hopes I had built up and I'm not seeking to blame Canon for their marketing strategy as I know it's business. I do think that maybe marketing campaigns like this should have laws regulating the way a launch is advertised and the expectations it builds in those who dont have the down to earth business acumen to not see past it. I would imagine some have held off shooting and without doubt many have not bought cameras. This should be adressed for manufacturers as wll as consumers who may have been fooled regardless if it's percieved as their own fault by some.