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.

Yep I though Monsters was a terrific achievement and bought the DVD I was impressed with the use of the EX1 and letus adapter on that film.I think it definately had its moment in time and value for indie film makers to take inspiration from. Did I think the quality of it matched an Alexa or an F3? Nope. There are a few films that have achieved success without using pro cameras all have been lucky and made something that hadn't been done like using a cheap video camera that simulated the home movie being made. Would I like to see the next James Bond film done on one of these? Would I go and watch it? Err no.

Did I think the quality of it matched an Alexa or an F3? Nope. There are a few films that have achieved success without using pro cameras all have been lucky and made something that hadn't been done like using a cheap video camera that simulated the home movie being made. Would I like to see the next James Bond film done on one of these? Would I go and watch it? Err no.

I imagine the successful films you're discussing have gone through development hell, putting deals together and various other hurtles. If you can do that successfully, the funds will come for a high end camera, but to get to that stage you have to prove yourself and a 8 bit camera can make a film that's both profitable and allows a film maker to prove themselves.

If people stopped shooting because of a new camera announcement then more fool them.

And anyway, as Brian pointed out, camera specs are largely meaningless to film goers, who are more interested in the script etc.

The fact is a lot of folks on this thread allowed themselves to get carried away with ever more ludicrous speculation. And you can't blame canon for that.

This is canons initial foray into motion picture cameras, many more will follow. In the meantime there are many fantastic cheaper options around.

Dom it's not really about the spec's, cheaper DSLR's are great but they are a pain to use and focus accurately I think most of us was just hoping for an affordable half decent replacement for the DSLR. Priced competitively Canon would have owned the market but they are using old marketing/business models - I don't want 4k, I just want a decent S35 1080P camera I can afford.

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.

Perhaps 12 is optimistic but certainly 10+ bits of linear in 8 in no problem. It's just using those 8 bits in the right places. The most you'd get out of HDMI would be 10 anyway.

As you point out the camera might be upgradable in the future too.

cheers
paul

I imagine the successful films you're discussing have gone through development hell, putting deals together and various other hurtles. If you can do that successfully, the funds will come for a high end camera, but to get to that stage you have to prove yourself and a 8 bit camera can make a film that's both profitable and allows a film maker to prove themselves.

To answer your first part Independent is what it is and only a lucky few get production companies large enough for a big budget. To make your breakthrough film I think you'd be lucky to raise £250,000 through investors. The budget I'm looking at for my project could be as low as £60,000 no room there for an Alexa or even a C300.. Anyway my hope was to buy one of these new cameras and run numerous tests of my own before I take on board a DP. I know many DP's prefer to rent and that's fine Myself I like to familiarise myself with what the camera can do and it works Just in case you make a mistake when filming that means its all unusable or not the way you want it.

If I were to make a film using an 8 bit out I know I'd regret it in post and colour correction. If you want to use monsters as an example, fine. Good example.

My pal called me last night and gave me the low-down, said it feels great, footage looks fantastic and he said it was the camera we wanted 10 years ago. And he doesn't throw words like that around too often -- he's a long-time video and film guy who has been waiting for something to come along that didn't cost $1800 a day to rent, or $100,000+ to buy.

It is pricey, but very interesting. I don't know, but the proof is always in the pudding. Both are priced pretty close, both have S35 sensors, etc., but the price goes up esp. once you add accessories to Scarlet, which you have to do.

Heath

If I were to make a film using an 8 bit out I know I'd regret it in post and colour correction. If you want to use monsters as an example, fine. Good example.

If you're director, unless you're also the DP, I'd leave the finer details of the camera to the DP, that's their job. With the right camera you can pretty much nail the look in camera, rather than getting into heavy colour correction in post, that's what a good DP can do with the camera's internal menus. The post is then just doing the fine grading tweeks.

Red's new Scarlet camera is S35 rather 2/3", so really comes to deciding work flows etc.rather than the sensor size in this case.

It is pricey, but very interesting. Super 35 sensor vs. RED Scarlet's 2/3? I don't know, but the proof is always in the pudding. Both are priced pretty close, esp. once you add accessories to Scarlet, which you have to do.

Scarlet is S35. What really kills me about the Canon is no 1080/60p. For low key shooting (no extended shooting), the 14k package from RED works just fine... I have EF glass to throw on it already so thats a zero cost. Scarlet it is for me... Working on getting my finances in order already....

Whoops, I will correct that, thanks! But here's the difference between RED and Canon... Canon has a better supply chain than RED, which only means that they'll deliver more, quicker. I'm not talking about overall quality, just speed and number.

heath

One more thing to note... Canon has never made a camera like this (and apparently they have a 4K lens that costs $45,000), so I don't think they're marketing it to their usual customer base, who use the XF100, etc. I think they're aiming for major Hollywood productions, hence Scorsese at the event.

Heath

If you're director, unless you're also the DP, I'd leave the finer details of the camera to the DP, that's their job. With the right camera you can pretty much nail the look in camera, rather than getting into heavy colour correction in post, that's what a good DP can do with the camera's internal menus. The post is then just doing the fine grading tweeks.

.

The right camera to do that with effectively costs a lot of money. You're better to shoot flat and get the grade you want in post in my opinion.

If people stopped shooting because of a new camera announcement then more fool them.

And anyway, as Brian pointed out, camera specs are largely meaningless to film goers, who are more interested in the script etc.


Although camera specs are meaningless to film goers it doesn't mean to say they wouldn't recognise something shot on a lessor camera. They would. In fact that is the reason why manufacturers have more expensive options. If that wasn't the case everyone would be making movies on their cell phone


The fact is a lot of folks on this thread allowed themselves to get carried away with ever more ludicrous speculation. And you can't blame canon for that.


Maybe they did but I don't believe the majority of speculation was ludicrous in fact most of it was accurate. What was wrong was the price point which Canon led people to believe would be more affordable because they targeted all consumers. Also if this was an ad campaign run on TV it would never be allowed as it would be misleading in my opinion.


This is canons initial foray into motion picture cameras, many more will follow. In the meantime there are many fantastic cheaper options around.


Yeah all crippled

The right camera to do that with effectively costs a lot of money. You're better to shoot flat and get the grade you want in post in my opinion.

The FS 100 has a surprising number of levels to set each colour in the camera and other adjustments in its menus. Of course, you do need a good monitor and a means of setting your exposure accurately, which is a requirement with any video camera shooting a feature film.

However, if you're doing any strong "looks" you do need to keep to them and you can't change your mind afterwards. In practise this isn't a huge deal, since you can see what you're getting live on set and you can see if everything is working.

Problem is if you change your mind and I do frequently. :)

I wouldn't buy an FS100 it doesn't have any ND filters only 8bit out issues with panning arghh form factor cant have the camera at head height One card slot. awful.

One more thing to note... Canon has never made a camera like this (and apparently they have a 4K lens that costs $45,000), so I don't think they're marketing it to their usual customer base, who use the XF100, etc. I think they're aiming for major Hollywood productions, hence Scorsese at the event.

Heath

I have to agree with Heath on Canon's approach on this camera. I'm a dealer and sell the other Canon video cameras - but to my surprise, I just learned that Canon isn't even giving dealers like myself access to this camera. So I'm very confused seeing as this was the type of camera I've been waiting for Canon to offer - and now I can't even resell it.

Twice in one day I see two cameras announced that need the support of knowledgeable local dealers - and neither are available to them. And don't even get me started on Apple...

Allan Barnwell
Omega Broadcast Group - Professional Video Sales, Rental & Services (http://www.omegabroadcast.com)

I don't have anything constructive to add,
but like to type when I'm sad.
To the tune of Bohemian Rhapsody

But then late last night I bought a Scarlet
Am I happy?
YES I'M HAPPY!
Is he happy?
YES HE'S HAPPY!
Happy happy happy happy happeeeeeeee!
JimJannard please deliver it soooon!

Yeah all crippled

There's a saying about the carpenter who blames his tools... are you familiar with it?

Problem is if you change your mind and I do frequently. :)

When grading in post you can't keep changing your mind either, if you don't have a vision of the film as a whole you wouldn't have the constancy that you need on a feature film.

Off-topic: Mark, I hear ya on shooting "flat," and color correcting in post, but I learned from DPs who were paranoid about their stuff being altered too much, so I do 95% of my looks in camera, then touch it up in post. But more and more, I'm going your route.

Also, I love local camera dealers vs. big box shops; I can get all the info I need, and then some! Which leads me to this question: does RED allow their cameras to be sold by dealers? Or is it all direct sales.

And to tie this to the C300, I'm curious if dealers will sell it, or if Canon will just go straight to Panavision and rental houses?

Heath

There's a saying about the carpenter who blames his tools... are you familiar with it?

But I'm not blaming my tools and if I add tools to my toolbox they will be tools that I can use to properly do the job.

BRIAN

Of course you change your mind when grading only a fool would stick religiously to a grade. When a film is being shot that is a different film to what ends up on the screen The edit the score even the emotion of it can change. Once edited your film can take on a different meaning and the grade can look better a different way. Changing my mind was a flippant remark I should have said go with the film as a whole as it develops as for having a vision thats great as a start and hopefully that vision will end up on screen but the vision can be improved on and it can change

Thanks Heath. I haven't actually come across to many DP's who don't want the look changed or at least that have said that to me.

I just wrote a long rant about cameras in the Scarlet (re-re-re-etc.) announcement thread today, but to sum it up... it isn't your camera, it's your talent. I've seen plenty of movies that I thought were shot on 35mm, but were done on the XL1 with a 35mm lens and adaptor. See: 28 Days Later... Audiences are sophisticated, but with the right talent behind the camera, a great gaffer and crew, plus excellent editing, no one will know the difference. An audiences is also savvy enough to know when a story is bad, though, so no amount of RED shooting can fix that.

Footage from the Canon 5D Mk II made cameos in Iron Man 2, Captain America, The Avengers and others. (Not the iPhone, which the DP of Avengers said he was misquoted.) Didn't House shoot an entire ep with the 5D Mk II?

heath

Off-topic: Mark, I hear ya on shooting "flat," and color correcting in post, but I learned from DPs who were paranoid about their stuff being altered too much, so I do 95% of my looks in camera, then touch it up in post. But more and more, I'm going your route.

Also, I love local camera dealers vs. big box shops; I can get all the info I need, and then some! Which leads me to this question: does RED allow their cameras to be sold by dealers? Or is it all direct sales.

And to tie this to the C300, I'm curious if dealers will sell it, or if Canon will just go straight to Panavision and rental houses?

Heath

After my last post - I got an answer from Canon about dealers. The dealer channel for the C300 is not yet established. It will be something new, and dealers will be selected and announced in January.

As for RED, despite dealers like myself making efforts to get RED to see the added value of using a dealer channel, they have stuck to direct sales thus far. They make no special considerations for rental houses either. We are both. Strange..

Allan Barnwell
Omega Broadcast Group - Professional Video Sales, Rental & Services (http://www.omegabroadcast.com)

Thanks for the info on this, Allan. Interesting what Canon is planning, and too bad about RED.

heath

I just wrote a long rant about cameras in the Scarlet (re-re-re-etc.) announcement thread today, but to sum it up... it isn't your camera, it's your talent. I've seen plenty of movies that I thought were shot on 35mm, but were done on the XL1 with a 35mm lens and adaptor. See: 28 Days Later... Audiences are sophisticated, but with the right talent behind the camera, a great gaffer and crew, plus excellent editing, no one will know the difference. An audiences is also savvy enough to know when a story is bad, though, so no amount of RED shooting can fix that.

Footage from the Canon 5D Mk II made cameos in Iron Man 2, Captain America, The Avengers and others. (Not the iPhone, which the DP of Avengers said he was misquoted.) Didn't House shoot an entire ep with the 5D Mk II?

heath

Yes I have seen films like this too The DSLRs can give a great film look until you look closely at the footage that is in some way compromised. I think the zacuto shootout proved beyond all doubt the shortcomings. Footage can often look great in a small box on the web. Not so good blown up on a cinema screen Lets face it if an XL1 can really shoot like film and look as good on a cinema screen then forget the Alexa or F3 bring the XL1 back. So why haven't they. Watching Mobious today shot on the C300 You can clearly see its a film look and in my opinion speaks I'm a film shot by professionals because of the way I look. If I want a look like the C300 I need a camera like that especially for skin tones and highlights where the lessor cameras mean you have to be careful. The C300 Looks like the camera everyone will buy because they want the look they know their audiences will buy into as professional I saw some AF100 footage shot in venice that was spectacular but it was venice where the bright sun and the use of its ND filters worked in its favour. In the right circumstances with the right workaround many cameras can work splendidly. However I want a camera that will give me the look I want when I want how I want.

Personally I really dont want to go back to buying an EX1 and using the Letus combo now. If thats my fate then I am resigned to it but please dont make me feel like I dont know what I'm talking about Because I know about workarounds and how they can disrupt a shoot lose time lose shots and not look as good.I know that when time is running out and you need those shots and setting up or cutting out lights to fit in with the cameras short comings can be a loss. If I go on a seven week shoot with the Letus combo and the Letus breaks down I and the cast and crew are stuffed. Would I should I take that risk? NO Maybe on a short film I can mess about.

Bottom line TOOLS TOOLBOX make sure you have the right tolls to do the right job IE reliability versatility and the best you can get to give a professional look in all circumstances. And you know things have changed so much Only a few years ago the Letus was grounbreaking The tools are now much improved and that means now we could compete with the big boys if only we could afford the damn things.

I'm sorta wondering now about the Scarlet. £10500 all in but with potential problems with the camera reliabilty Probably an idea to wait on that one.

You gotta do what's right for your film, but you can also run into the biggest issue of all: the producer. He or she may stop us from using a RED, because it doesn't make financial sense. But no great camera in the world, like an F65, will look good if you don't have the right crew behind it. I can't tell you how many people I know (and I was one of them) who thought a better camera meant better footage.

But I'll stop right there, because we are getting way off topic.

heath

Of course you change your mind when grading only a fool would stick religiously to a grade. When a film is being shot that is a different film to what ends up on the screen The edit the score even the emotion of it can change. Once edited your film can take on a different meaning and the grade can look better a different way. Changing my mind was a flippant remark I should have said go with the film as a whole as it develops as for having a vision thats great as a start and hopefully that vision will end up on screen but the vision can be improved on and it can change

Things do change, although I'm not sure that a feature film usually takes on an overall different meaning, more a voyage of discovery about what's within it. All these changes can depend on you having time to make them and when you've got a tight schedule you're not in the same position as when you're doing everything for yourself.

Most directors and DPs know what look they're going for during pre-production, and some DPs have it in their contract that they color time (correct) the final, otherwise they'll lose that look they developed. My DPs have it in their contracts whenever I do a film, and I'm okay with that.

But we're getting way off topic here from the C300.

heath

Brian. Do you insist on colour correcting the films you DP or do you attend the grading but leave it to the director with words of advice etc or do you mostly shoot with the look already adjusted in camera I appreciate every film is different but when you get the chance what is your preferred method.

Wow, even the HD-SDI is limited to 8 bits:

"The serial representation of the uncompressed 4:2:2 component set is structured from the parallel 8-bit component set and is fed to the camera's HD SDI interface allowing parallel outboard recording to be implemented if desired."

Canon DLC: Cinema EOS Frequently Asked Questions (http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/misc/cinemaEOS_faq.shtml)

eek that's torn it!

Brian. Do you insist on colour correcting the films you DP or do you attend the grading but leave it to the director with words of advice etc or do you mostly shoot with the look already adjusted in camera I appreciate every film is different but when you get the chance what is your preferred method.

It depends on the production, I've done it both ways.

It mightn't even be the director supervising the grading, it could be the editor.

Wow the editor grades the film sometimes.

I think if it was me I'd listen to the post house if ever I could afford one or lucky enough to get proper financing and let them show me various grades and ideas and then make a choice as the director. Always open to ideas but I would always want the final say on that.

Wow, even the HD-SDI is limited to 8 bits:

"The serial representation of the uncompressed 4:2:2 component set is structured from the parallel 8-bit component set and is fed to the camera's HD SDI interface allowing parallel outboard recording to be implemented if desired."

Canon DLC: Cinema EOS Frequently Asked Questions (http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/misc/cinemaEOS_faq.shtml)

I'm confused by their explanation. How does the following relate to bit depth (quoted from Canon site)?:

"Why 8-bit instead of 10-bit?
The video components within the EOS C300 camera are processed at 13-bit for Green and 12-bit each for Red and Blue. This allows excellent nonlinear processing of the video that ensures a superb tonal reproduction over the nominally exposed range (that is, from reference white down to capped black level). A contrast ration in excess of 500:1 is achieved. In addition this bit depth has sufficient overhead to handle overexposed signals. When the camera is set to 850 ISO and the Gamma transfer function is switched to Canon-Log an 800% overexposure is achieved – which translates to the camera being able to capture an Exposure Latitude of 12 f-stops."

We are way off topic, but I'll add this: Director always has final say, unless he or she doesn't have final cut. But the look is usually worked out in advance. Many films shoot with special filters or film stock to create a look, and many more DPs prefer that, so no one mucks with the look, but it's been approved in pre-production by the director. It's all in the contract usually.

But I can't imagine wasting money trying to re-grade a film in post if I'm not happy with it. That's why you do tests and make the decision in pre-production. On film production, you can't afford to be iffy on the look.

heath

and Daniel Browning

Thanks for getting back on topic.

heath

8 bit HD SDI does sound rather strange given how the competition is offering 10 bit.

Having said that I gather the images from the camera are rather good.

How much consideration do you think Canon placed on providing an image high end consumer could edit? Even with a pretty hot computer, even 1080-60P @ 28Mbps on multiple tracks with effects can be taxing.

So, could Canon be optimizing the "workflow value" for those editing on non-exotic computers and whose work is destined for medium sized screens for corporate viewing or large computer screens? In other words, it may be a smart play to provide a camera that provides for reasonably edited images that competes with more exotic cameras on all-but-large screen viewing where most of us play. Would the differences between a C300 and Alexa be significant for home or computer audiences? I can certainly still see the differences between an Alexa and a 5D.

The above logic doesn't work if we still get narrow dynamic range, moire, bad S/N.... But if Canon somehow avoids these issues at 50Mbps with a stunning image for less than big screen viewing, I'd be impressed.

I'm confused by their explanation. How does the following relate to bit depth (quoted from Canon site)?


They're basically just saying "because 8-bit is good enough".

In nonlinear formats (i.e. most non-raw formats), your bit depth is a budget you scan spend on dynamic range or "depth" (i.e. "tonal reproduction" or "tonal range"). If you blow most of your budget on dynamic range, then the depth will be poor. If you spend it all on depth, then the dynamic range will be poor. The C300 default is 9 stops range, but it also provides an 8-bit 12-stop option (Canon-Log).

8 bit HD SDI does sound rather strange given how the competition is offering 10 bit.

Having said that I gather the images from the camera are rather good.
Yes, but as said before, there are two separate issues. Direct image quality, and flexibility in post - an 8 bit image is capable of giving an excellent image, but may severely limit post grading options.

That said, 10 bit in itself isn't enough - it needs to be in conjunction with things such as S-log etc.

We are way off topic, but I'll add this: Director always has final say, unless he or she doesn't have final cut. But the look is usually worked out in advance. Many films shoot with special filters or film stock to create a look, and many more DPs prefer that, so no one mucks with the look, but it's been approved in pre-production by the director. It's all in the contract usually.

But I can't imagine wasting money trying to re-grade a film in post if I'm not happy with it. That's why you do tests and make the decision in pre-production. On film production, you can't afford to be iffy on the look.

heath

Having shot film I know you have to grade it in post and shooting a look with filters is in my opinion really dangerous. Not a move I would make. I wouldn't try and regrade footage that has been graded by the camera because I'd never do it in the first place. I have imagined altering the camera to give a grade but ultimately just wouldn't.

Is this off topic? I think grading on the C300 Just became very relevent as you would be grading in camera with it if it only has 8 bit out and you're using it in a professional capacity.
Something I may have to reconsider if this becomes a useful tool on the C300's later cheaper offshoots.

Grading, or at least professional grading, isn't limited to applying a simple overall look to a certain footage.

It's rather something much more complex but totally subtle to the viewer. Besides matching scenes and takes for continuity (which might have been shot days, weeks or years apart), there are an infinite amount of power windows that are used to change the color of certain items, unperceptibly vignete shots to add drama, darken or lighten parts of the frame to draw attention to certain objects or characters, etc, etc, etc.

Grading is essential for drama storyteling. And it needs ample room so that those changes don't affect image quality.

For that reason I don't understand the 8bit output of the C300, even through SDI, if this camera is really targeted at Hollywood and TV drama production.

Exactly Henry. I use all the tools you mentioned when doing my own grading and having attended a grading session know how skilled proper grading really is and why I personally would never try for a look in camera.

They're basically just saying "because 8-bit is good enough".

In nonlinear formats (i.e. most non-raw formats), your bit depth is a budget you scan spend on dynamic range or "depth" (i.e. "tonal reproduction" or "tonal range"). If you blow most of your budget on dynamic range, then the depth will be poor. If you spend it all on depth, then the dynamic range will be poor. The C300 default is 9 stops range, but it also provides an 8-bit 12-stop option (Canon-Log).

Thanks Daniel. Makes sense. I guess, all else being equal, 10-bit will still be better. The question is how much can Canon do to make things not equal.

There's grading and then there's GRADING.

If your look is fairly realistic, you can set the look in camera, fine tune in post, and you're done. That's grading. With GRADING, you might want the forest silvery green, the sky desaturated, the skin pale peach, and the lips and blood cherry red. On a higher end production, you have art direction, costumes, and makeup that can help get this look in-camera (they can't generally recolor trees and sky though) and you still need to push the colors just right in post. With a budget film, we only have so much control when shooting. For us, it's really important to have latitude in post.

I see the C300 as being a great cam for television shoots, romantic comedies, and other applications where grading is really limited to small adjustments and scene matching. But it's not the right camera for a heavily graded modern horror film - especially if you don't have a large crew to pre-color your shots.

No reason to be angry at Canon though. If you want to do extreme grading (and a bit of slow mo), choose the Scarlet. If you're creating a straight ahead look and want fast turnaround, consider the C300 - especially for television production.

As always, know your project requirements and choose the tools wisely. Or, if you already have tools, design your projects within their limits.

Another option for those strapped for cash is camera sharing. Two cameramen i know bought a digibeta many years ago and made good money with it before selling and halving the cash. Camera's spend an awful lot of time in their bags, unless the owner is incredibly busy, which is unlikely in the current climate. As many others have pointed out, most pro's rent anyway.

Concerning Canon's ad campaign for this camera, AFAIK there was never any suggestion it would be priced at the prosumer level. Many posters simply projected their fantasies onto the announcement without a shred of evidence to support it. Considering Canon has never made a camera like this before, it is indeed "ground-breaking" as suggested in their press announcement.

I see the C300 as being a great cam for television shoots, romantic comedies, and other applications where grading is really limited to small adjustments and scene matching. But it's not the right camera for a heavily graded modern horror film - especially if you don't have a large crew to pre-color your shots.

What I don't understand is - Is there a need to upgrade even from what is currently being used? I don't see anything in the C300 specs that would make such an upgrade worthwhile, especially when considering the price.

I guess that depends on what you are upgrading from and what your workflow and goals are.

Key features include no aliasing, dual recording, genlock, timecode, HDSDI and clean HDMI out. For me, the lack of aliasing is important; the other features aren't. But in the pro television production market, dual recording, genlock, timecode, and external interfaces are critically important.