I would really like to get involved in a production with this cam and see what it does, beginning to end... I want to see how it shoots, how the footage stands up to compositing/greenscreen/grading, etc....

Its really difficult for me to make a decision on which I would spend money with because the amount of quality glass available in EF mount is something to consider, and the full control of the lens from the body with no extra adapters etc... I dont think the F3 has the ability to control EF mounts, do they? Then again, lack of 1080/60p really.... really kind of puts a damper on everything for me as I really do use higher framerates for everything I shoot.

Firmware update canon... let's go!

Also - Im guessing HD-SDI signal is only 4:2:2 as well?

Yes, SDI output is 4:2:2

Firmware update for 1080p60 is highly unlikely. 720p60 is already in the camera though.

Like Chris explained earlier, many cinema cameras have been 1080p and have been very popular such as the F23, F35, Genesis, Alexa, to name a few. While 4k-5k does offer some advantage, it is just not *needed* for high end cinema. For heavy vfx movies, creating effects and 3D models in 4k is completely out of the question due to the extra time and cost and not to mention, the extra rendering overhead. The hundreds of Terabytes used for 3D heavy films is insane enough for 1080p and computers haven't gotten that much faster to compensate for quadrupling the number of pixels to calculate.

I recently read about a new render format for 3D programs in order to reduce storage requirements. One example was a 6s shot from Smurfs that took up 18GB at 1080p down to a few hundred MBs.

Film has been scanned and edited at only 2k for many productions and many productions also export R3D 4k to 2k files for editing and compositing.

1080p is good enough for high end cinema and will continue to be for quite some time. The *only* issue I see with the C300 is being limited to 8bit acquisition and how well its log gamma in 8bit will hold up with people outside of using Resolve. Personally, I have seen how well an 8bit image holds up in a 32bpc Floating Point environment; so, I know its possible to push 8bit images. However, noise will greatly limit one's ability and we have yet to see how the C300 compares to its nearest competitor, the F3, which is already very clean.

Frankly, 720p60 might be enough in many situations. Often slow motion is used along with some distortion for a sleepy/drugged/injured POV shot. Lower resolution wouldn't be a problem.

Can I assume that the 720p60 is full raster? If so, that would be in contrast to the windowed 2K/1080 60p in the Scarlet X.

It is a very serious mistake to focus solely on numbers.
.

Indeed, one rather fussy high end DP, who was there commented that regardless of the 8 bit, the images looked good.

They now have web site

http://www.canoncinemaeos.com/index.php

There are a number of features on the camera which are worth checking out like waveform and a vectorscope.

If the sensor is 4k and grading with the S log is done at the sensor level I can only imagine the possibilities of this. No wonder the images are stunning.

Maybe Sony MIGHT include S log as standard on the F3 after this! Still no match for the C300 though except in choice of grading in post of course.

My guess is there will be an even more professional camera to come for their 4K lenses. I don't think its likely to grade at 4k in post so grade in camera with s log still but with maybe a second s log 10 bit out.. Well that would finish it wouldn't it. Competition obliterated.

Hmm seems like this just the beginning of something really REALLY BIG That still maintains Pro and consumer markets and gives the competition a damn good hiding.

My guess is there will be an even more professional camera to come for their 4K lenses. I don't think its likely to grade at 4k in post so grade in camera with s log still but with maybe a second s log 10 bit out.. Well that would finish it wouldn't it. Competition obliterated..
As Larry Thorpe has said, Canon has essentially put a brand new S35 sensor into the XF300 (rather than develop everything else), so they could release a product in just 2 years.

For professional work the camera is still lacking IMO. It doesn't make sense to put a $50k PL zoom in there just to get an 8bit signal. Likewise, on professional environments you need clean 3Dlink Log output to go to the recorders with a simultaneous SDI with LUT for the producer or client monitor, who'd wonder whether the camera is broken if you were to feed them an ungraded Log curve. You can of course do this with a vey expensive Cinetal monitor with 3DLUTs, but that one is for the DIT guy. Also, let's not forget the 1AC (focus puller) also needs a separarate monitor with a 709 LUT for focussing (unless he's an old school guy who works by feet reference).

The list goes on and on. No 60p either, etc. Let's remember Canon has adressed Hollywood and drama TV with this camera. I'm sure as we speak, a true professional camera (actually having the features that a pale cheap F3 sports) is being developed in Canon labs, one that will properly take advantage of all features of this new Canon S35 sensor.

Henry

That's why I think they may have a Professional camera just around the corner!

IE NAB!

Hmm seems like this just the beginning of something really REALLY BIG That still maintains Pro and consumer markets and gives the competition a damn good hiding.

My guess is that we're reaching technological maturity in CMOS imaging, as has happened with still photography. Some commoditization of the base capture technology allowed Red to go out and purchase what they needed.

I think the future is superb images from increasingly cheaper devices. There's only so much information in the image circle of a lens. That fact plus the limitations of physics suggest that this isn't an endless cycle of IQ improvement.

An entry level DSLR takes an essentially indistinguishable still image from the top pro model. The IQ difference between brands is very small too. This is happening in video.

As Larry Thorpe has said, Canon has essentially put a brand new S35 sensor into the XF300 so they could release a product in just 2 years.


That's why I'm confused about the price. The C300 looks to be around $10K more than an XF300... and in addition the XF300 includes a fairly good lens.

No way can the sensor cost that much to manufacture. Of course R&D is expensive but if I was Canon I would aim to recoupe this with volume of sales rather than high mark up. That would also immediately give them a much higher market share = more control of the market. With no higher end cameras to protect, this camera shouted sub $10K to me with a big brother (4K, dual link HDSDI or RAW) coming in at $20K and a little sister (EOS mount only, no Genlock, maybe HDMI only...yuck!) at $5K. All could share the same sensor but would still carve their own niche. To me it seems a far better strategy.

...And one more thing, can someone please explain the logic to that STUPID EVF position? Notice that in the BTS videos no one is using it. A movie camera VF needs to be movable...but of course, stills shooters who designed the camera may not realize that.

You can of course do this with a vey expensive Cinetal monitor with 3DLUTs, but that one is for the DIT guy. Also, let's not forget the 1AC (focus puller) also needs a separarate monitor with a 709 LUT for focussing (unless he's an old school guy who works by feet reference).
.

Any focus pullers (1st AC) I know use tape measurements for pulling focus, although the tape may be a Laser rather than a length of cloth. They tend to use the monitor for quick checks on the framing etc, the on board camera monitors tends to be too small for accurate focus judgements. You also tend to be slightly behind the action using the monitor.

The AC will eye focus if the marks on the lens aren't really satisfactory, but they usually put focus marks on the lens or follow focus, rather than use the monitor during the shot. Although, some will do a quick confidence check at the monitor during the take, they're not using it for actual the focus pull.

The TV camera operators do use the V/F monitor on studio cameras for focus, but they also tend to be 2.3" cameras.

...And one more thing, can someone please explain the logic to that STUPID EVF position? Notice that in the BTS videos no one is using it. A movie camera VF needs to be movable...but of course, stills shooters who designed the camera may not realize that.

If you watch the behind the scenes for "Max is Back", you'll see it in use for their handheld setup. This was the rig I played with at the Canon event. I'm a vocal proponent of articulating viewfinders (I stayed far away from the loupe-on-the-viewfinder mode of DSLR shooting, always using an external monitor) but this wasn't all that bad to work with, although obviously it will only work with the camera in a relatively similar orientation to your body (if you need to drop the camera to chest height or on a sandbag etc, you are out of luck). The viewfinder is surprisingly high-res.

Clearly the camera is designed to have an outboard third party viewfinder, but one wonders why Canon didn't just make the built-in one movable instead, with a dedicated viewfinder port cable.

No so sure if this "off topic" but is there an opinion out there, an informed one hopefully, about whether Canon will be bringing out a new shoulder mount/interchangeable lens version of the XF300/5?

The BBC I understand are happy enough with the XF305s and their 50Mbps codec to have purchased 50 of them.

Not that they will be used for TV drama but rather "run and gun" situations where there is still a demand for portable 3 chipper cameras.

My own interest is wildlife filming, strictly amateur, but I have seen a EX3 with a Nanoflash being used on a BBC Wildlife programme. Given the Beeb are using 305s without a Nanoflash there could therefore be situations where an interchangeable lens version would "go".

Assuming that such a camera would have a sub $10K price tag (with a "standard" lens?) then it would tap into the "prosumer" market where there are more and more wildlife film makers, many of them stuck with using DSLRs.

Canon must know that the main purchasers of their big EF 500/600mm lenses , after perhaps pro sports photographers, are wildlife photographers, most of whom seem to be "prosumers" if not rank amateurs, at least here in the UK. Persuade these that the future "moves" but not ideally via a single chip narrow depth of field DSLR then the market opens up even more.

Ron

I suspect the Xf 305 are being used as replacements for the Z1, which isn't accepted as HD by the BBC, so they'll be used on productions in the same manner.

The EX series is popular with the Nanoflash because of the low cost, if Canon were going for an on shoulder design, it would make sense for it to be a 1/2" or 2/3" design with interchangeable lenses. The XF 305 lens has correction software built into the camera, so it's somewhat different to an interchangeable 1/3" camera using different lenses.

...The viewfinder is surprisingly high-res.

Clearly the camera is designed to have an outboard third party viewfinder, but one wonders why Canon didn't just make the built-in one movable instead, with a dedicated viewfinder port cable.

Thanks Charles.

I agree as far as the camera will NEED an outboard VF but not that it is DESIGNED to have one. In fact it appears to be designed without really considering the VF. If it was designed to have an outboard VF, it should have a VF port or at least a second HDSDI port. As far as I'm aware it has neither.

Now I'm all for having a quality VF included (like on the EX3 and PMW350) but why go to the trouble of including an EVF only to then lock it in an inflexible position. It screams of a designer who is not a user.

These are really simple things to get right and this lack of attention to (major) detail annoys me on what claims to be a high end professional tool.

why go to the trouble of including an EVF only to then lock it in an inflexible position.To be fair, it is not inflexible. It can be rotated on the vertical axis up to 60 degrees.

...I stayed far away from the loupe-on-the-viewfinder mode of DSLR shooting, always using an external monitor...

I would too, if I owned your steadicam rig. ;) (Did you really sell it?)

The loupe solution is pretty effective for a shoulder rig setup for those of us with aging eyeballs. But I never use the loupe on a tripod, jib, dolly. I either use the onboard LCD when doing things quickly or an LCD monitor when I have more time.

Of course, a side EVF is best for shoulder work. It gives better balance and retains the close focus advantages of a loupe. But the loupe is about ten times as cost effective...

To be fair, it is not inflexible. It can be rotated on the vertical axis up to 60 degrees.

And I am told it is of very good quality too. I actually like the compactness of its design. The C300 accessories kit also include a nice eye cup for the EVF.

To be fair, it is not inflexible. It can be rotated on the vertical axis up to 60 degrees.

But the position is inflexible. My gripe is that it is placed too far back and can't be moved. In order to use it the entire camera and lens has to sit directly in front or below your face. Therefore shoulder mounting more or less dictates buying an additional VF. This adds to costs and will never be as convenient as a dedicated design.

Come on guys, do you actually think this design, particularly the VF is optimal? If not the only way they'll know is if we raise the issue.

I suspect the Xf 305 are being used as replacements for the Z1, which isn't accepted as HD by the BBC, so they'll be used on productions in the same manner.
I understand the BBC basically bought the Z1s as SD cameras - they were bought to give true SD 16:9. At the time of purchase, general HD broadcasting seemed a long way off. Expensive programmes (Planet Earth, big dramas) were being made in HD - but not run of the mill stuff.

Apart from getting old, one motive for replacement must have been to get an equivalent type of camera - but HD. Hence the XF305, which ticks all the boxes. Worth noting that they have also bought a lot of PMW500s - also using the 50Mbs XDCAM422. And there was a report in TVBEurope not long ago that when "Eastenders" went HD they were using the PDW700 camera for location work. Yes, XDCAM422 again.

Take the best source you can think of, for instance 35mm film scanned with an ARRISCAN at 4k.

Now compress it to 50Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2, and to 1,200Mbps uncompressed 10 bit RGB 4:4:4.
Now decide which looks better.......
I doubt you'll see a huge amount of difference..... (The EBU trials did describe XDCAM422 as "quasi-transparent".)
........and gives you more room in Post.
Ah! now that's a different matter...... And isn't this really what everybody is saying? Just that some are seeing a half full pot, others one half empty?

Canons use of this codec is great - if you don't want to change "the look" too much from that fixed at time of shooting. And for a great deal of work - and broadcast work, not low budget - that will be the case. High quality, easy to work with, and for current broadcast, who needs better than 1080p? It'll be a long time before it can be broadcast, and it's not so long ago since many were saying that 720p was good enough - why even go to 1080? I didn't agree with that, but even with larger screens in the home 1080 is probably as much as the human eye can take in.
My guess is that we're reaching technological maturity in CMOS imaging, as has happened with still photography............

An entry level DSLR takes an essentially indistinguishable still image from the top pro model. The IQ difference between brands is very small too. This is happening in video.
There's a lot of truth in that. In the end, there's not a lot of point in getting much better than the human eye can distinguish.

Where there still is a little way to go is making a camera that shoots both high quality video, and high quality stills. At the moment there's quite a gulf between sensors optimised for still or video.

What I prophesy will really end that is a sensor of dimensions 7680x4320 (4x 1920x1080 in each direction), or about 32 megapixel. Reasoning is that it's more than enough for stills, but using the same principle that Canon are using for the C300 it can be very easily directly read for 4k or 1080. (For 4k, exactly how Canon are currently doing with the C300, but scaled up - direct read of 2x2 blocks - and for 1080 just read 4x4 blocks instead.)

Therefore shoulder mounting more or less dictates buying an additional VF.

Well, that's a given... see pics below (click to embiggen).

On the Zacuto shoulder support rig, they should have left
the top handle off... not sure why it's on there.

This adds to costs and will never be as convenient as a dedicated design.They're placing a greater emphasis on modularity and compactness.

At this level -- $16k to $20k or whatever it is, the cost of a third-party
EVF component like this Zacuto piece is insignificant. Budgets for the
camera dept. should *always* include a good degree of latitude to cover
extra gear like this... nothing new here.

They're placing a greater emphasis on modularity and compactness.

But Chris, if it was properly modular why is there no VF port (or at least 2nd HDSDI output)? I don't think HDMI is suitable for pro work and know many who would agree.

At this price I would expect a proper VF solution designed as an integral part of the camera. I would not expect to have to daisy chain HDSDI cables or worse still HDMI cables into a 3rd party solution. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here - I spend a lot of my time with my eye against a VF and it is absolutely critical to achieving decent footage. You are arguing that it should be taken as "a given" that a camera needs two VFs?


... nothing new here.

Eh? Apart from the equally badly designed F3, name me a recent professional level camera that isn't designed to provide a viewfinder positioned to shoot from the shoulder? (Obviously within a acceptable weight limit).

Your argument that the camera is so expensive that the extra cost is irrelevant appears totally backward to me. Sure, on a cheap DSLR where video is an ancillary function I expect compromise. On a professional cinema camera I expect the design of essentials like the viewfinder to be integral and not rely on 3rd party bolt-ons.

The issue is that the design clearly stems from an SLR form factor not a film/video camera form factor. I see no ergonomic reason for this however I can see HOW it happened - the R&D was led "by a member of Canon USA’s still photography EOS team."

In my opinion that was an error and has led to a number of design flaws.

Eh? Apart from the equally badly designed F3, name me a recent professional level camera that isn't designed to provide a viewfinder positioned to shoot from the shoulder? (Obviously within a acceptable weight limit).

Disagree... the F3 LCD is much better positioned than the C300 (in that is HAS one) and is a full class ahead in terms of ergonomics. Not great of course, but usable with minimal modification compared to the DSLR.

I understand the BBC basically bought the Z1s as SD cameras - they were bought to give true SD 16:9. At the time of purchase, general HD broadcasting seemed a long way off. Expensive programmes (Planet Earth, big dramas) were being made in HD - but not run of the mill stuff.

Apart from getting old, one motive for replacement must have been to get an equivalent type of camera - but HD. Hence the XF305, which ticks all the boxes.

Yes, I know at least some Z1s for BBC commissioned productions only shot miniDV rather than HDV. The PD150 was commonly used before that.

But Chris, if it was properly modular why is there no VF port (or at least 2nd HDSDI output)?

Actually there *is* a VF port, it is one of the jacks where the monitor / XLR unit plugs in.
See attached pic (click to enlarge). The two jacks at the very top right -- labeled "1 EXT 2"
-- one carries the viewfinder output, the other is the two-channel XLR audio input. Is it a
proprietary connection? I don't know, it probably is. It's definitely an HD output, and it's
definitely not HD-SDI nor is it HDMI. Unfortunately I neglected to get a photo of it, which
was an oversight on my part. I'll try to find out.

You are arguing that it should be taken as "a given" that a camera needs two VFs?

I'm saying there are plenty of options available, both included and third-party. The
camera comes with the built-in EVF and also the removable LCD / XLR unit.

Apart from the equally badly designed F3, name me a recent professional level camera that isn't designed to provide a viewfinder positioned to shoot from the shoulder?

Clearly, this is *not* a shoulder-mount camera. It certainly isn't designed for hand-held
field production. That's not the market this thing is pointed at. Most of the time it will be
at home on a tripod, a dolly, a jib or a Steadicam -- the four most common mounting
arrangements in film and narrative television production, where a center-line EVF such
as this is either a totally moot issue or it's an asset. If somebody wants to rig it up for
handheld work, that's going to require a shoulder support rig and *maybe* a third-party
EVF, if the included position-anywhere LCD unit isn't desirable. But that's a known
quantity going in.

Also, not everyone will use the HD-SDI jack for an external recorder. Some will be happy
to record the XF codec to Compact Flash, and for them, the HD-SDI jack can be used for
an external HD monitor.

On a professional cinema camera I expect the design of essentials like the viewfinder to be integral

Mike -- the viewfinder *is* integral. It's just center-line, which you don't like. That's understood.

In my opinion that was an error and has led to a number of design flaws.

Well, clearly it's not right for you, but that doesn't necessarily negate it for everybody else.
Canon said they interviewed 150 filmmakers over two years before settling on this design
and feature set. Of course it isn't going to please everybody, but they're going after a
particular niche market with this and they did quite a bit of research.

Disagree... the F3 LCD is much better positioned than the C300 (in that is HAS one) and is a full class ahead in terms of ergonomics. Not great of course, but usable with minimal modification compared to the DSLR.

Dylan, yes the F3's LCD is fine but the viewfinder is a poor design choice.

Clearly, this is *not* a shoulder-mount camera. It certainly isn't designed for hand-held
field production. That's not the market this thing is pointed at. Most of the time it will be
at home on a tripod, a dolly, a jib or a Steadicam -- the four most common mounting
arrangements in film and narrative television production, where a center-line EVF such
as this is either a totally moot issue or it's an asset. If somebody wants to rig it up for
handheld work, that's going to require a shoulder support rig and *maybe* a third-party
EVF, if the included position-anywhere LCD unit isn't desirable. But that's a known
quantity going in.

Hand held isn't unusual in British TV drama, plus some feature films have quite a lot, Also, I'd expect this camera to be used on documentaries.

Np doubt the 3rd party manufacturers will come up with the goods for shoulder hand held. Although I gather from one former Aaton owner that the C300 isn't bad hand held, just different. I imagine the light weight helps, although looking at it, using the heavier cine prime lens and a matte box could make it rather front heavy. Perhaps not a problem with the Canon EOS lenses, using the WI FI as a remote follow focus.

The advantage of shoulder mounting is that you've got one hand free for adjusting the focus or using other controls. Well, on the traditional film & ENG cameras you have, the double handle job out front is more recent.

Mike -- the viewfinder *is* integral. It's just center-line, which you don't like. That's understood.

Well, clearly it's not right for you, but that doesn't necessarily negate it for everybody else.
Canon said they interviewed 150 filmmakers over two years before settling on this design
and feature set. Of course it isn't going to please everybody, but they're going after a
particular niche market with this and they did quite a bit of research.

It's not just shoulder mount, how about a high tripod. I'm sorry but handheld is a very common configuration in narrative (a little overused IMO) and should not require 3rd party accessories to achieve it.

The poor design doesn't negate the camera but it means 3rd party workarounds have to be used to correct its faults. It terms of the VF, all it would have taken is to make it detachable and supply an articulated arm and cable as Charles suggests.

They may have researched it but a quick Google search on film and video cameras from the past 50 years would have yielded a more successful design. I can't imagine a professional shooter ever asking for this design unless they had only ever shot on DSLRs... but maybe that's what their benchmark was! Surely the whole point of this "cinema" camera was to escape DSLR form factor?

As a pro who uses cameras everyday, I like my kit to work quickly, easily and reliably. 3rd party workarounds will always hinder that.

I found a couple of things interesting, they announced the same day (or nearly) a 4K recordable DSLR in the works, did they mention this at the C300 gathering ? Is there a possibility of a 4k mod on the C300 once they figure it out ? Neither Red nor Canon has mentioned 3D, will this be a trend going forward?

Disagree... the F3 LCD is much better positioned than the C300 (in that is HAS one) and is a full class ahead in terms of ergonomics. Not great of course, but usable with minimal modification compared to the DSLR.

It looks like the C300 (not a great name btw...) can be positioned in many different ways. In regards to ergonomics, it is unlike anything on the market and just from the pictures, I feel this is going to be a pretty well balanced camera for handheld work when used in a stripped down configuration with EF lenses. As much as I dislike the F3 EVF position, it was a good idea to outfit the C300 with a compact EVF on the back.

Best,

..........

What I prophesy will really end that is a sensor of dimensions 7680x4320 (4x 1920x1080 in each direction), or about 32 megapixel. Reasoning is that it's more than enough for stills, but using the same principle that Canon are using for the C300 it can be very easily directly read for 4k or 1080. (For 4k, exactly how Canon are currently doing with the C300, but scaled up - direct read of 2x2 blocks - and for 1080 just read 4x4 blocks instead.)

It does seem FF35 sensors are about to be made in the 30mp range. I wonder if Canon will do quad 1080p on FF35? Doing it on S35 as non-bayered photosites would make for small photosensors.

I was surprised Canon made the new cine primes to cover FF35. That must add significant cost with no significant use at this times. For IQ I doubt on an S35 sensor there's much difference between the new Cine lenses and the existing EF L series primes. Of course there are usability differences. And for the price the new lenses should be sharper at the corners at open aperture on a large sensor.

The future "C" series DSLR likely won't make the XF codec of use that electronics package. Two different development groups in Canon.

But I don't see how there can be a large market for 4K capture. TV has gone backwards in true resolution, what with Netflix and other forms of net delivery. Is there high data rate 1080p anywhere but broadcast TV? What's the worldwide demand for 4K cameras each year? The apparent fact that there are too many Red Ones in the U.S. rental market is telling.

We're rapidly reaching the point where only consumer demand for higher quality imaging will create a large market for higher res cameras. I see that demand being about zero. Blue Ray is meh, 3D is looking more like a fad. What they seem to want is compelling, well told stories. I hate that :)

I found a couple of things interesting, they announced the same day (or nearly) a 4K recordable DSLR in the works, did they mention this at the C300 gathering ? Is there a possibility of a 4k mod on the C300 once they figure it out ? Neither Red nor Canon has mentioned 3D, will this be a trend going forward?

It's extremely unlikely that the electronics package in the C300 could do that beyond the SDI out. There's also the question of what sensor size they will use for 4K. They have laid out a different path than Red, going for higher quality capture at lower specs. This plays to Canon's CMOS expertise.

It looks like the C300 (not a great name btw...) can be positioned in many different ways. In regards to ergonomics, it is unlike anything on the market and just from the pictures, I feel this is going to be a pretty well balanced camera for handheld work when used in a stripped down configuration with EF lenses. As much as I dislike the F3 EVF position, it was a good idea to outfit the C300 with a compact EVF on the back.

Best,


The ergonomics "stripped down" (to say, without any rig/accessories) like any DSLR shaped camera, will be bad for handheld. But maybe we have different references for what's good/bad handheld.

The problem with no LCD on the side means you need to buy/mount one for shoulder rig use, which is extra weight/$1000-$2000. The one on the F3 is in the right position and good enough for shoulder use. No matter how you position the EVF on the C300... it won't make up for this.

Never shot with the F3... but I haven't heard anyone being able to use the side F3 LCD without sliding the cam forward on whatever rig its on. Of course you can just throw a battery further back to rebalance the rig, but I've heard multiple complaints about its position when shoulder mounting. If this isn't the case with new rigs, then all the better obviously.

The thing is.... the main application for this camera I would think is either tripod, steadicam, or shoulder mount. If I am shoulder mounting this cam or an F3, I would highly prefer to position my own monitor anyway and not move the camera around on the rig. The other two applications you need a monitor anyway. If you throw it on a jib its even more a moot point.

Im not nitpicking the camera until I have the chance to shoot with it... which will probably be never since scarlet is only 10k. Not a slam on the C300, i just dont have the cash haha

The problem with no LCD on the side means you need to buy/mount one for shoulder rig use, which is extra weight/$1000-$2000. The one on the F3 is in the right position and good enough for shoulder use. No matter how you position the EVF on the C300... it won't make up for this.

The C300 has a separate LCD in addition to the EVF. It's actually pretty ingenious IMO. It sits on a control unit that be totally removed and rotated. You can attach it to a far forward or a rear position on the handle in both a horizontal and vertical orientation because there are two standard shoe mounts. If the LCD is positioned at the far forward position and then flipped down and mirroed, it's in perfect position for shoulder mount.

I actually like the EVF position for what it is. It works well when you use the side handle, operating it like a medium format camera with a waist level viewfinder. The side handle is very comfortable. It feels just like an EOS still camera.

Erik Allin from Canon said the EXT 1 and EXT 2 connectors are proprietary, but they plan to release the specifications to accessory manufacturers. So I think it won't be long for someone to come up with something like Abel did to adapt a broadcast VF to the C300. In fact, the mounting will probably be a lot easier. This is coming close to my dream of this Ikegami camera: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/476636-sony-prototype-cinema-camera-shown-nab.html#post1513023

I'd allow rather more than $10k for the Scarlet, in practise more like $14k for a shooting package. The pricing is the same as you'd find with a film camera, the cost of the body then you need the magazines etc,, except in this case it's for a brain instead of the camera body..

The problem with no LCD on the side

Actually, the LCD / XLR unit included with the C300 can be positioned
on the left side, or wherever you want to put it... see pics below for an
example of a left-side mount, using an arm from RedRock Micro.

The C300 has a separate LCD in addition to the EVF.

Sorry I missed you there, Tim!

I'd allow rather more than $10k for the Scarlet, in practise more like $14k for a shooting package. The pricing is the same as you'd find with a film camera, the cost of the body then you need the magazines etc,, except in this case it's for a brain instead of the camera body.

More like $21K+ once you add an evf, the "basic production (handle) package" to attach it to, and enough media to shoot for an hour. Oh and don't forget a few more batteries to get you through that hour.

Indeed, I was just going for the most basic Scarlet get you going rig. In practise you need more to keep you going for a working day.

Could you buy the brain and use an atomos with it?

Not really, you need batteries, a LCD and other accessories. How good the live de-bayering on the camera through the HD SDI actually is another issue, when filming you tend to use that more as a video assist rather than for providing the master. Although people can do this, but it's not really getting the best out of the camera.

Although I'm not delighted with the pricing at this point, my interest is being able to create beautiful images on medium sized Hi-end projection screens and computer screens that can be efficiently handled in post with a reasonably powerful computer. The 5D/7D were a great move forward, but even at streaming qualities they were significantly less appealing than the Alexa and Red on the 2011 Shootout. Some of us would like the ability to broadcast and create superb aesthetics with video camera controls and pro audio to display on less-than-large-cinema screens on a the display formats mentioned without having to own an exotic editing station.

I wonder what portion of DVinfo.net produce work for audiences on a Hi Quality projectsions larger than 12'?


Chris,

That might be an interesting statistic to gather, What % of the forum's participants are produced to display on Large Cinema Screens, Med HD Screens (Hi End Corp/Worship), Std Corporate Screens (i.e. w/ PowerPoint next in line...), Computer Screens?

Well the Atomos has a screen you can use for framing and also you would plug in your own monitor I imagine it uses a 12 volt battery. Couldn't you buy one off the shelf?

With Modular cameras like this you buy so many peripherals why not go the whole hog.

Of course if the HDSI out isn't up to it then that's an end to it.

I think Canon was right not to spend a lot of money/size/weight/complexity in making the C300 ideal for handheld. It's a CMOS camera with rolling shutter. Even with the 5D2 for corporate demos at work, we went with a track and jib as well as a tripod & slider here at work. (A Steadicam is more flexible, but costs more, and requires more skill.)

On the Bourne movies, they went handheld for a purposefully shaky look, but they didn't do it with CMOS.

Unless this sensor is exceptionally fast, the C300 is not the best choice for handheld, regardless of ergonomics.

Unless this sensor is exceptionally fast, the C300 is not the best choice for handheld, regardless of ergonomics.

Jon, I certainly hope it is a lot better than the 5D mk2 (and by all accounts it is). Most high end video CMOS chips are fine for normal handheld work. It's more strobes, whip pans and serious vibration that can cause artifacts.

Well the Atomos has a screen you can use for framing and also you would plug in your own monitor I imagine it uses a 12 volt battery. Couldn't you buy one off the shelf?

With Modular cameras like this you buy so many peripherals why not go the whole hog.

Of course if the HDSI out isn't up to it then that's an end to it.

I wouldn't try doing this until the camera is out and judgements can be made on the quality of the outputs. On RED cameras you use the LCD for accessing menus and other functions, so I suspect using the Atomos screen from the HD SIDI mightn't be the most practical method of working. You'd need more than one battery, the RED cameras are pretty power hungry and they're not cheap.

So if I decided to go Red I'd probably be best to go for the production pack Is that the one you're going for Brian.

I'm not buying, I'll rent or the production company will rent. I might have considered buying the 2/3" Scarlet for documentaries.