A few thoughts after digesting what everyone is posting......
1) Again, I find it a bit fascinating that posters can be so sure, based on the specs, of how bad the picture is with the 8 bits....you can only truly comment on the full potential of the picture if you saw it on the 4K projector at Paramount.....and the fact that ALL of the DPs categorically stated that 8 bit was a non-issue.
2) How can anyone be so sure on the camera's physical layout (monitor location & adjust-ability , VF, etc) and complain about it if you haven't had it in your hands? I think if you did, you would understand it better.
3) as for saying the DPs were on Canon's payroll so they will say only good things is completely wrong. Their reputation is way more important then the very minor amount of money Canon could have paid them. Does one really think that in a forum like Thursday night in front of their peers, they would tow the company line in trade for their reputation?
I know I'm sounding a bit preachy here but all these thoughts and statements do not match up with what I experienced during my 3 days with this camera and being around people who worked with it. Between now and the end of January, Canon is going to be getting these cameras out to the selected dealers for people to touch & feel...I suspect they will also try to arrange screenings of the films for people to judge for themselves.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

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.
When asked during the panel discussion on Thursday night, ALL of the DPs said there was absolutely no rolling shutter.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

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.

I'm looking forward to finding out the rolling shutter times of this camera as well as the 1D X, the mystery Cinema DSLR, and the next gen 5D, 7D, etc.

BTW, one can test it very accurately with a fast strobe. Shoot video. Trigger a photo flash unit. Find a frame where the flash falls within a frame and another place where you see the start of the strobe on one frame and the end of the strobe on the next. As long as you know the frame rate, you can then calculate the true rolling shutter time, based on line counts.

On the 5D2, it's 25ms, which is 75% of a 30fps frame or 60% of a 24fps frame.

And, yes, the new cam is no doubt faster. The existing 1D4 looks like it has something like 50 or 60% of the rolling shutter time of the 5D2, based on the Zacuto Shootout, Part 3. (I wish that they had strobe tested the cameras to provide the hard numbers.) The 1D X and C300 are almost certain to be faster still.

2) How can anyone be so sure on the camera's physical layout (monitor location & adjust-ability , VF, etc) and complain about it if you haven't had it in your hands? I think if you did, you would understand it better.


Because where the VF is, it requires the entire camera and lens combo to be in front of you which leads to an unwieldy shoulder mount configuration. I have used many other cameras with this configuration and unless the laws of physics have changed, it isn't optimal above a certain weight. A weight this camera will easily exceed in most professional environments.

I suppose if you come to it from only shooting with DSLRs (which many shooters now do) this isn't such a compromise. However, I think that the higher end camera people that this camera is supposedly aimed at will want a traditional shoulder mount configuration as an option. This can be created using third party accessories but IMO a camera at this level should integrate this into the design. This could have been done without detracting from any of the benefits of the current design.

these days, every camera is front heavy...and everyone is using some type of shoulder rig. DSLRs, the Epic, AF100, FS100, Alexa, etc, all are not good as a stand alone shoulder mount thus, we are selling a lot of shoulder mounts.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

these days, every camera is front heavy...and everyone is using some type of shoulder rig. DSLRs, the Epic, AF100, FS100, Alexa, etc, all are not good as a stand alone shoulder mount thus, we are selling a lot of shoulder mounts.


The Alexa sits very well on the shoulder and is very well regarded for its ergonomics. It is a great example of how Arri understands movie camera design. I haven't used the Epic but the others listed are more good examples or poor ergonomic designs for movie cameras and as you say require add ons in order to work ergonomically.

The other manufacturer who seems to "get" ergonomics is JVC but they seem to have fallen behind a little in other areas.

1) Jim Nothing wrong with 8 bits as an end result at all. The reason you would want at least 10 bits is for grading in post. YES you can grade in camera on the shoot but then that's the look you will be stuck with. Watching the films I thought many times that the quality was outstanding but here and there would in the quiet time of post done more work. More obvious examples were night skies being to blue when filming in really low light situations.

The 10 bit issue won't go away unfortunatley.

I also noticed that Creative video is advertising the camera with 10 bit out I did tell them and the salesman looked at the page and said he would do something. Needless to say its still there along with a new ad for the PL mount also claiming it to be 10 bit out.

2) If the camera is $20,000 it's expected to have a design suitable for the purpose it's intended. In this case cinematic films. DSLR cameras are mean't to be still cameras and not diesigned for film making use. But a new market of frames for these cameras like zacuto which greatly adds to the expense. The modular idea from Red is not everyone's ideal. Some may want a small camera to get into places or to be discreet etc. But not too small the lens unbalances it and makes it heavy one end and also to have all the bits in the right place with large enough controls to fall neatly to hand without fiddling and the right tools on the outside and not buried in menu's Personally I hate handheld shots and would keep my camera on a tripod rail or stedicam.I think for most wanting to make films they want a camera that has clear usable colour coded buttons with a decent enough size to give easy access to all it's workings and a sensible weight to balance etc and also I think to handhold and make smoother shots with a heavier weight. Something that is solidly constructed and not going to break if it hits the floor. Not to heavy though for hard to get to shots

3) I don't think any of the film makers that made these superb shorts for canon would say something they didn't truly believe. Has anyone here actually said that they did? I think sometimes though listening to the film makers and the making of films you have to listen to what people don't say as well.

4) Will people use this camera as a serious film making tool? I can only answer for myself and although I love the picture I can't afford it first of all but if I could and I really love the picture I would go for the F3 with S log only because it has 10 bit out.

I think the first thing Canon should consider is if the price is going to drop is to do it now Because those who have been deterred by price will make their decision now and see no point waiting for a possible drop and sales will be lost in my opinion.

I also noticed that Creative video is advertising the camera with 10 bit out I did tell them and the salesman looked at the page and said he would do something.

Good on you, Mark -- that definitely needs to be fixed!

Sorry I missed you there, Tim!

Sorry I missed you at the event too, Chris. Although I did spy Jim Martin bogarting all the C300 posters ;)

The Alexa sits very well on the shoulder and is very well regarded for its ergonomics. It is a great example of how Arri understands movie camera design. I haven't used the Epic but the others listed are more good examples or poor ergonomic designs for movie cameras and as you say require add ons in order to work ergonomically.

I like the shoulder mount form factor too, but I can see why the C300 was designed the way it was. Apparently they only needed a certain amount of electronics to run it, so that's all the space they needed to package it. To get to a shoulder mount form factor, the camera has to be longer. Even if they made the camera lower and more squat, it probably would not have contributed much to the length.

Maybe one day they'll design an optical viewfinder/rotating mirror assembly and that will justify making the camera longer and more slender like an Aaton Penelope-D. That would be sweet!

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.




Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooh..... How did I not get that? Huh. Ok, I stand corrected (and thankfully, thats cooler than I thought!)

A few thoughts after digesting what everyone is posting......
1) ....and the fact that ALL of the DPs categorically stated that 8 bit was a non-issue.
Jim Martin

DP's have little to no involvement with post production and grading; so, to them, 8 vs 10 bits makes little difference.

Even for smaller projects, there are a large number of people requesting 10bit acquisition. Just ask the Convergent Design guys who have seen countless requests for a 10bit nanoFlash. On the topic of 8 vs 10 bit, the best people to ask are colorists. As someone who has been learning Resolve, color science and vfx in addition to other topics, I totally see the value for 10bit acquisition. There is a reason why 10bit DPX, 16bit TIFF and 32bit OpenEXR files are heavily used in features and commercials which use good amounts of vfx, 3D modelling and heavy grading. And there is a reason why Red, several Sony Cinealta cameras and the Alexa all have the ability to record at 12bits (and even 16bits for the F65).

With that said, most network shows don't require heavy grading or extensive vfx. As far as I can tell, this camera isn't designed to compete against Red, Sony's F35, SRW9000, F65 or Alexa for high-end cinema. Also, all high-end grading apps work in 32bpc and many vfx & NLE programs have the ability to work in 32bpc, which works wonders with 8 bit images. I took an 8bit JPEG into Photoshop, edited in 32bpc and created a set extension including making the sky larger (which was an orange gradient). Then, I brought into AE, edited in 32bpc and rendered as an 8bit H264 for the web (so, heavily compressed), and I had zero problems with banding. 8bits is not 'bad'.

However, for the C300, 12 stops in Canon Log is really pushing what 8bits can handle. Being able to record the 12 stop Log image in 10bits would make it much easier for post processing. Are there workarounds? Yes, but not many people can afford or have the ability to manipulate an image like professional colorists. However, most people don't need to manipulate an image like colorists do.

It should also be pointed out that many DPs are used to shooting 8bit, they've been doing it for years on HDCAM. They also often have a DIT who is used to getting the best out the cameras.

I gather there weren't any real problems with the green screen work on one of the films. So, it may be the case of waiting to see what the cameras are capable of in practise.

I wonder why Canon excluded a 10 bit output, it is present on many far cheaper cameras suggesting it isn't expensive to implement. Image quality aside, 8 bit is a bad marketing move. It either hints at protecting a future higher model or simple bad homework.

Just for the record I really like Canon and own four of their cameras, they just appear to have dropped the ball with the C300 IMO.

I also really like the 50Mbps codec but I'm surprised at the limitations that they think are acceptable at this price. My guess is that the output specs were fixed prior to the announcement of the F3.

Indeed, there could be a 4k version, using the same sensor possibly coming out. Canon may not have taken on board the availably of the 10 bit 3rd party external recorders in the same way as Sony did with the F3 and who also had the s-log as part of their game plan.

It should also be pointed out that many DPs are used to shooting 8bit, they've been doing it for years on HDCAM. They also often have a DIT who is used to getting the best out the cameras.

Like using the HDSDI 10 bit out on HDcam or using HDcam SR.
Does anyone proffessionaly shoot feature films or higher end stuff in 8 bits these days?

Like using the HDSDI 10 bit out on HDcam or using HDcam SR.
Does anyone proffessionaly shoot in 8 bits these days?

Are people forgetting that this can be 8bit log? This is more like a 10bit signal in terms of range from shadows to highlights. From what i have read the image is nicely dithered with a touch of noise which would reduce banding.

Plenty of folk work in 8bits.

cheers
paul

Like using the HDSDI 10 bit out on HDcam or using HDcam SR.
Does anyone proffessionaly shoot feature films or higher end stuff in 8 bits these days?

I was on set in Hollywood last week watching a shoot for an upcoming series on Comedy Central.
Full crew, the works, dolly etc., standard two-camera set-up using Sony F3's. I asked, are these
dual-link out? The answer was no. They were using the S-Log upgrade though.

8-bit vs. 10-bit seems to be the trendy argument du jour but the reality is that 8-bit simply
is not a limitation, depending on the type of work you're doing. There's a lot of television that
won't be heavily graded.

Like using the HDSDI 10 bit out on HDcam or using HDcam SR.
Does anyone proffessionaly shoot feature films or higher end stuff in 8 bits these days?

I'm not saying many feature films do still use 8 bit, but many DPs have experience using it and are aware of any limitations. However, some TV dramas are shot on 8 bit DSLRs and these are also being used on feature films as B cameras. These have far more limitations than the C300.

Any HDCAM being shot is more for broadcast TV than theatrical these days and they're also using 8 bit in the pretty common XDCAM HD, its replacement. As a format it was used for other work than shooting feature films. This gear tends to be used long after the latest toys come out, so once established in use by a broadcaster, they tend stay in use.

If the cost difference on a low budget feature means shooting on 8 bit and affording a better actor, you go for that rather than 10 bit. You have to workout your priorities for a film.

8-bit vs. 10-bit seems to be the trendy argument du jour but the reality is that 8-bit simply is not a limitation, depending on the type of work you're doing. There's a lot of television that won't be heavily graded.
Exactly, and well said.

It may be time to bring this up again - the EBU codec trials. (XDCAM422 being one of them.) - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/general-hd-720-1080-acquisition/137934-ebu-hd-acquisition-codec-tests.html

and in particular, the EBUs current advice:
The 8-bit bit-depth is sufficient for mainstream programmes, but 10-bit bit-depth is preferred for high-end acquisition. .......All tested codecs have shown quasitransparent quality up to at least 4 to 5 multi-generations,.........
That's the EBU talking about mainstream, broadcast programming from some of the worlds biggest broadcasters. That's not saying there's never any point in a 10 bit system - it depends on the work you're doing (as Chris says) - what it does mean is that far too much emphasis is being put on 8 bit v 10 bit by a lot of people.

far too much emphasis is being put on 8 bit v 10 bit by a lot of people.Exactly my point -- thank you, David!

I was on set in Hollywood last week watching a shoot for an upcoming series on Comedy Central.
Full crew, the works, dolly etc., standard two-camera set-up using Sony F3's. I asked, are these
dual-link out? The answer was no. They were using the S-Log upgrade though.

8-bit vs. 10-bit seems to be the trendy argument du jour but the reality is that 8-bit simply
is not a limitation, depending on the type of work you're doing. There's a lot of television that
won't be heavily graded.

Drama Shows of all kinds will need grading.

8 bit v 10 bit is a a reality and a choice made by professionals ALL the time and they make that choice because grading in 10 bit is far superior to grading in 8 bit. But why would that even be an issue? Surely we can all accept 10 bit grading is preferable to 8 bit grading every single time.

So now that's put to bed....

Would the sort of shows that don't need much grading choose a camera that can grade in camera to give a film look when they dont need a film look or would they be happy to use Xdcam with S log and have minor grading done in post to be safe as you pointed out with comdey central. The sony F3 has the plus that it's a camera that can do 10 bit out if needed and it's cheaper. So if you your argument is correct then why pick a camera that grades internally when its not needed and costs more money and if they DID want 10 bit out.. IT isn't there.


I think my original point that this is a camera that indie film makers want but can't afford and that profeesionals wont want but can afford is correct. It kinda puts this camera in the realm of very very nice toy and one that I would love in my christmas stocking but not one I would seriously go out and risk a feature film on. I just wouldn't. However I would make INDIE short films with it that cost little but those people are not the ones being targeted.

I'm sure though many TV companies will buy this without thinking it through and I'm sure much of the footage will get broadcast or maybe even a niche in the broadcast world found for it.

Canon made a fantastic camera with a single flaw that in my opinion kills it.

Does anyone have an idea when the camera will be in the hands of reviewers? Hopefully this will happen soon and not have to wait until end of Jan. Sony has made a smart move of offering rebates on the F3 (and other things like external recorders, the new ENG zoom) that expire before the C300 is available to the public.

People will be making camera selection decisions for a number of reasons. If the 8 bit camera allows you to shoot in places that you can't with the 10 bit or RAW camera for example. I know people used to shoot feature films on DSR 500 using DVCAM rather than Digitabeta, even though the latter is 10 bit 4:2:2.. The reasons were partly fashion and partly budget, even though the budget was £1m in one case - it did come down to the last few hundred pounds according to the producer.

Regarding Canon, it could become an issue if their 4k camera isn't competitive with the F3 fitted with s-log or the Scarlet. That's unless this camera intended to be an Epic or Alexa contender in another market entirely, It could depend on what their overall game plan is.

The Canon does the S log magic in camera so you wouldn't get an S log picture from it to use in post like you would with the F3.

If the Canon and F3 were similar costs you would still pick the one with the 10 bit out because its there if you did need it.

For the less binary oriented 10 bit holds four times the information of 8 bit. (1024 possible values instead of 256).

.................
If the Canon and F3 were similar costs you would still pick the one with the 10 bit out because its there if you did need it.

I would probably pick the camera with the better image and low light performance. I would be more careful and concerned with exposure on 8 bit.

I agree with everything Mark has written.

I think Canon rushed the C300 too much. They should have developed a proper codec and electronics rather than use those from the XF300.

At Amsterdam IBC I had the chance to see what the SLog F3 with an uncompressed 10bit 444 recorder was capable of and it was stunning, specially for the price, much better to what I've seen so far from the C300. I atribute this to the F3 having more latitude and the 10bit vs 8bit.

Just for an apples to apples comparison, go check the videos at Vimeo from the F3+Log tests -made with no budget at all- and compare them to the promotional C300 shorts -which had a lot of money to play with, including very expensive grading suites.

In my opinion the C300 sensor is unfortunately handicapped. The C300 is an XF camera with a S35 sensor and should be at the $10k price mark. I don't have a problem paying for an expensive camera, as long as it delivers.

The F3+SLog+Gemini looks much better to me. Also the F3 has LUTs, 3DLink+SDI and 1080@60p, all of which the C300 lacks. With the F3 it's also way easier to build a very simple and balanced shoulder rig, the C300 has an EVF-FF conflict and requires the EVF to be so far back it's out of the camera body, requiring a long and heavy counterbalance.

The lack of 1080 60p is odd, considering the XF300 has it. We can assume that the C300 sensor is read fast, so I wonder what the problem is?

If the Canon and F3 were similar costs you would still pick the one with the 10 bit out because its there if you did need it.

Not always, it would depend on the type of productions you were planning to shoot. The C300 form factor might be be more suitable for the type of films you make. If this enables you to get the shots that's the one to go for, 10 bit with no images in the can is pretty worthless.

However, given the competition in the market it would be better of it had 10 bit HD SDI, but it is in spitting distance of a F3 with a Nanoflash in cost terms. How it impacts overall really depends on how many people buy external recorders for their F3 and of those how many buy 10 bit recorders.

At Amsterdam IBC I had the chance to see what the SLog F3 with an uncompressed 10bit 444 recorder was capable of and it was stunning, specially for the price, much better to what I've seen so far from the C300. I atribute this to the F3 having more latitude and the 10bit vs 8bit.



You haven't seen the C300 in a comparable way.
8 v 10 bit only matters when significant changes are needed. 10 bit isn't going to make a well shot image better than 8 bit. If your technically oriented I'm surprised you don't put more emphasis on the sensor differences between cameras. These are major, and Sony knows it.

Not always, it would depend on the type of productions you were planning to shoot. The C300 form factor might be be more suitable for the type of films you make. If this enables you to get the shots that's the one to go for, 10 bit with no images in the can is pretty worthless.

However, given the competition in the market it would be better of it had 10 bit HD SDI, but it is in spitting distance of a F3 with a Nanoflash in cost terms. How it impacts overall really depends on how many people buy external recorders for their F3 and of those how many buy 10 bit recorders.

Yes but your narrowing the capability of the F3 to make a case.

If you can get your grade in camera at the shoot and you know you'll be happy get the canon as you can cut out the cost of grading.

If you want to wing it and you grade in camera with a view to making minor corrections then get the canon and render your footage into 10 bit and grade that.

If you want to make a film with 5 million riding on it and you want to wing it go see a shrink ;)

The lack of 1080 60p is odd, considering the XF300 has it. We can assume that the C300 sensor is read fast, so I wonder what the problem is?

The XF300 don't have 1080 60p either. This frame rate is probably not included in the spec of the Digic DV III cpu and/or the XF codec.

I'm not really narrowing the F3, although it does narrow the market of the C300.

If you had $5m you're unlikely to be shooting either of these cameras, unless they're giving you something that an Epic, Alexa or a 35mm film camera won't. You pick the tool for the job and if say the C300 or F3 enables something that's going to improve how the story that's the one you you'll use. "28 days Later" was shot with a Canon XL-1S, even though budget would have allowed for 35mm film. They wanted a lack of detail as part of the look.

8 bit or 10 bit is one part of the decision process. The F3 and C300 are very different cameras, so you'll be looking at a number of aspects. One is more compact for a start.

If you want to make a film with 5 million riding on it and you want to wing it go see a shrink ;)
If you have even a very small fraction of that, I wouldn't use anything but an ALEXA. It costs just €900/day, times 3-4 for a week, and a month is around €12k or less.
Commercials and music videos are shot in a single day, features in a month. If there's no budget for this, there isn't for anything else and the project is not worth it.

Of course that is for a bare bones ALEXA, but full a package with the ALEXA also including ARRI MB, FF, NDs, cards, batteries, Sachtler 20 and a set of UltraPrimes is €1,400/day tops.

On the other hand, the F3/C300 is the kind of camera you can buy rather than rent.

Drama Shows of all kinds will need grading.

8 bit v 10 bit is a a reality and a choice made by professionals ALL the time and they make that choice because grading in 10 bit is far superior to grading in 8 bit.
Mark - the story of "Eastenders" going HD was reported in TVB Europe this time last year - Taking Eastenders HD - theworkflownews-content | TVBEurope Magazine Online & In Print (http://www.tvbeurope.com/theworkflownews-content/full/taking-eastenders-hd)
Following extensive trials and testing, to see if they could break the digital compression system, the combination of the HSC-300 and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders were selected. The XDCAM’s were for location work .....
Eastenders may be one of the most high profile examples (at least in the UK) but there are many, many other "professionals" using 8-bit codecs very happily for drama.

Would I use this camera if I had a $5million budget? Probably not, and probably not 8 bit recording. But with that sort of money the 8-10bit issue would only be one factor. As others have said, it's time to go for something like an Alexa, not a 10bit C300.
But why would that even be an issue? Surely we can all accept 10 bit grading is preferable to 8 bit grading every single time.
Cost? Why spend money on something you don't need? Maybe 10 bit grading is preferable to 8 bit - but it's likely to come at a cost, and if you simply don't need that level, why bother?


Don brings up the subject of sensor. I strongly suspect that tests will show the C300 sensor is better than the F3 - we'll see. Not that anyone will be able to see very much difference in most real life work - but why fixate on bitdepth and ignore other atters such as sensor?

I'm curious about the postulate that the C300 sensor will be better than the F3. Is this based on what people have seen? on the technology of the C300 sensor? other stuff?

Thanks.

DAVID

Eastenders is a soap that runs four times a week and needs to be delivered quickly. Eastenders has been broadcast live and looked the same as always so grading must be done in camera Not much time for grading anyhow and probably the look set up in camera or at a controlled stage with camera setups and cameras that live on sets. With lights that stay the same on those sets.Except externals and outside broadcasts. Do they use 8 bits then?

8 bit undoubtably has advantages when it comes to eastenders built sets .

Are you saying the 4K sensor will down convert a better picture than the 1080p My thoughts were this was only an advantage in the on board S log.

I don't need 10 bit recording because it will come at a cost????

WOW

I'm not really narrowing the F3, although it does narrow the market of the C300.
Well you are if you tie the Nanoflash with the F3 as the nanoflash which is only 8 bit and you know the F3 can be partnered with the Gemini However the Canon cant.


If you had $5m you're unlikely to be shooting either of these cameras, unless they're giving you something that an Epic, Alexa or a 35mm film camera won't. You pick the tool for the job and if say the C300 or F3 enables something that's going to improve how the story that's the one you you'll use. "28 days Later" was shot with a Canon XL-1S, even though budget would have allowed for 35mm film. They wanted a lack of detail as part of the look .

But also no one at any budget could logically justify using the Canon with its 8 bit post workflow when they could use the Sony F3 with S log at 10 bit.

Grading in camera for all your setups and locations is just too risky and doesn't give you any room to change your mind in post or to improve on mistakes or to use all the great tools avialbale to a colourist.


8 bit or 10 bit is one part of the decision process. The F3 and C300 are very different cameras, so you'll be looking at a number of aspects. One is more compact for a start.
Yes but it wont be very compact by the time you add a set of rails matte box hook up peripheral monitors and alll and any othre attachments you have. Looking at some of the demo films the camera sometimes fully loaded looked more like a bazooka.

Anyway that aside If someone wants to make a cinematic film with actors with a small camera to be incognito or to put it somewhere that is only a small space or where a light weight is essential Maybe remote control it from a few hydrogen balloons I dont know. then they must expect that grading could be a problem.

You can make a camera bigger but you can't make smaller. If size is an important consideration for a production this becomes a factor in the selection. If you're shooting a film in the jungle with very little power, the needs are different to being in the middle of a city.

The F3 dual link costs approx $3.700 from one dealer, then you need to add the recorder. How all this compares with the final street price of the C300 remains to be seen. Quite possibly Canon may come out with a camera that gives a similar spec for post work, but it isn't the C300.

There are always a number of considerations when selecting a camera for a film, what works for one doesn't always work for another. Applying a look in the camera isn't that risky, you just need to know what you want. It's been done for a number of pretty large feature films in the past.

In the end it just comes down to your budget and what you need to tell the story, 8 bit or 10 bit is just one part of the equation.

If size is an important consideration for a production this becomes a factor in the selection. If you're shooting a film in the jungle with very little power, the needs are different to being in the middle of a city.

If you take a cast and crew out to the jungle you will be taking a lot of equipment and what you need. I really wouldn't buy a camera because I'd be afraid of runiing out of power. I'd buy more batteries.


The F3 dual link costs approx $3.700 from one dealer, then you need to add the recorder. How all this compares with the final street price of the C300 remains to be seen.

If you're buying this sort of kit to make a film with you will want to do your grading in post in ten bits. If you just use the F3 with S log you will be safe Wheras if you colour correct in camera and make mistakes you might have wasted the shoot. Who would take that risk?

Quite possibly Canon may come out with a camera that gives a similar spec for post work, but it isn't the C300.

I imagine that Canon have something just around the corner with full 10 bit workflow. Seriously they wouldn't make a $20,0000 camera with 8 bit out without there being a sound marketing strategy behind it. My guess is they wil want top dollar for a new camera that will be king. By putting ten bits out on the C300 it would be shooting itself in the foot and the C300 would be king of the hill.


There are always a number of considerations when selecting a camera for a film, what works for one doesn't always work for another.

Yes thats true Unfortunatly though the Canon doesn't have ten bit out and it's a camera designed for grading how daft is that?


Applying a look in the camera isn't that risky, you just need to know what you want. It's been done for a number of pretty large feature films in the past.
Yes in the ten bit world so they could undo any damage.


In the end it just comes down to your budget and what you need to tell the story, 8 bit or 10 bit is just one part of the equation.

No it's not one part its a massive part in a camera designed for grading. Its only explanation is so it doesnt tread on the feet of something bigger and better and is a protective strategy. They may very well have shot themselves in the foot with this as it's a camera that Indie film makers want but cant afford and a camera that professionals wont want but can afford in my opinion.

Who knows if it is a strategy maybe its some kind of natural justice. Unless (which may be the case) people just buy into the absolutely gorgeous pictures and forget the rest. People have a tnednecy to have blinkered vision and sometimes just fall hook line and sinker. I certainly wouldn't want to miss inform or glam up something I didn't really believe. I feel compassion for those spending money on this sort of equipment that they don't have and getting something they didnt expect Because thats what we film makers do We will do our utmost to improve our lot even if it means selling posessions and taking loans we can ill afford.. However out there in some blogs and people who would help them out of every penny and call it business.

More batteries aren't much use if you can't recharge them fast enough because you don't have access to enough power.

You can colour correct 8 bit 4:2;2 enough in the camera to get it close enough for the final fine adjustment. I know because I've seen people completely screw a grade on DVCAM and there was wide range of maladjustment, while the video the the two cameras on the set perfectly matched up We could switch between the cameras on the set they were the same.

I think you should test the camera and see if there any issues with that you don't want, otherwise you don't really know in practise what the C300's limits are.

Brian
So do you see 8 bit as acceptable for professional post work that includes grading?

Yes, but just don't push your luck and keep things under control at the shooting stage. A good DP will pin things so you don't need a wide range of adjustments in post, just finessing. Gordon Willis used to expose film so that the studio couldn't change things during the grade.

Again this comes down to your budget, not having 10 bit isn't an excuse for not making a film, there are now range of options for shooting lower budget films. You can do camera tests to work out your limits with a particular camera, it's the same as a DP does with film stock. I know of people having problems grading with a RED because they didn't make allowance for it's weaknesses and it's 12 bit.

Eastenders is a soap that runs four times a week and needs to be delivered quickly......grading must be done in camera Not much time for grading anyhow.........
Yes, all true..... and true for many, many other productions. Which is really the point. If 8 bit is good enough for Eastenders (which for people not in the UK, gets some of the highest audiences in the country) surely it's not a problem for a lot of other people either? People who are exactly who this camera is targeted at?
.......Except externals and outside broadcasts. Do they use 8 bits then?
Read the quote from the article. "the combination of the HSC-300 and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders were selected. The XDCAM’s were for location work .....
Read the full article and you'll see they use switched cameras for the regular sets, recorded direct to server via Avid DNxHD at 120Mbps (which I believe is 8 bit?), and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders for location work. Effectively the same codec as the Canon C300, and yes, 8 bit. For location drama.

If it's good enough for the BBC to use when they migrate one of their most watched drama programmes to HD, don't you think that's a pretty good recommendation? Do you have any complaints about the technical quality of Eastenders?
Are you saying the 4K sensor will down convert a better picture than the 1080p My thoughts were this was only an advantage in the on board S log.
I'm curious about the postulate that the C300 sensor will be better than the F3. Is this based on what people have seen? on the technology of the C300 sensor? other stuff?

Purely theoretical - I did say "I strongly suspect that tests will show the C300 sensor is better than the F3 - we'll see"

Reasoning. The F3 has a Bayer sensor whose active dimensions are about 2456x1372 (3.36MP effective). After deBayering this will give a R,G,B raster of the same size, but with a resolution somewhat less. The 2456x1372 will then need to be downconverted in real time to 1920x1080. The deBayering and downconversion will take quite a lot of processing - and downconversion is not an easy thing to do well.

The C300 sensor may best be thought of as a 1920x1080 matrix of Bayer blocks, each of the form

G R
B G

And what the C300 does is read out the photosites individually - so directly gets an R,G,B value for each block. Simple - no deBayer processing. And each frame it directly gets 1920x1080 RGB samples. Simple - no downconversion!

How they will compare can really only be determined by measurement, but let's just say the Canon sensor is starting from a far easier place. The larger differences may turn out to be more practical than "quality" - simple processing frequently means lower power (hence heat).

Yes, but just don't push your luck and keep things under control at the shooting stage. A good DP will pin things so you don't need a wide range of adjustments in post, just finessing. Gordon Willis used to expose film so that the studio couldn't change things during the grade.

Again this comes down to your budget, not having 10 bit isn't an excuse for not making a film, there are now range of options for shooting lower budget films. You can do camera tests to work out your limits with a particular camera, it's the same as a DP does with film stock. I know of people having problems grading with a RED because they didn't make allowance for it's weaknesses and it's 12 bit.

So can I ask what made you change your mind since this?
HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD - Cinematography.com (http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=29511)

DAVID

Look no one is disputing the Canon couldn't be used for professional broadcast it could.

So lets split this into two parts.

NON GRADING
But why would you? There are other cameras out there like the Sony F3 that can do it cheaper and give you S log out if you did want to grade in post. If you don't need a large sensor there are even cheaper options.

GRADING
You wouldn't use the Canon for professional grading because it's only 8 bit out..

Fair enough?

Brian
So do you see 8 bit as acceptable for professional post work that includes grading?

Yes, I certainly do because I have actual experience grading 8bit footage from cameras including EX3's internal 35Mb 420, EX3 to nanoFlash at 280Mb/s 422, Red One down converted to 720p at 8bits as well as 3D renders to 8bit PSD (after hours of rendering and testing, I now use 8bit PSD for 90% of my 3D renders). I also have experience with vfx and compositing elements into an 8bit plate. The reason I can get good results with an 8bit image is due to Floating Point 32bits per channel. I already stated that all Pro grading apps such as Resolve and most Pro vfx software and NLE's can edit in 32bpc. Personally, I use After Effects CS5 for my grading (and soon will be Resolve when released on Windows in a couple months). When I need to push an image, I work in 32bpc mode within AE. When I edit with Premiere, I always check the box to render in 32bpc mode, and I have never had a problem.

This isn't to say that I completely disagree with the complaints about no 10bit output. On a $20,000 camera in 2011 designed for high-end work, there is absolutely NO excuse. If Sony can put a 10bit HD-SDI output on their $4,000 cameras, then why did Canon put an 8bit output on their $20k camera?

Furthermore, I don't understand people's comments about 'grading' in-camera. If you saw what a colorist does in Resolve, you would understand that its impossible to 'grade' in-camera. I think a more accurate term would be "color correcting" in-camera. A common adjustment in grading is to key a face, add blue to highlights and green to shadows while keeping faces a natural color - this is impossible to do with any camera.

I also do not understand why Canon made a $20k camera with ONLY 9 stops of DR using standard gammas. The F3 has 11-11.5 stops with standard & cine gammas.

If the C300:
1) had 10bit out,
2) sold for $10k,
3) had a better design for adding accessories on top like the F3 and a cheese plate on top,
4) one body with both PL and EF mounts like the F3 with its F mount and PL adapter,
It would be a killer camera when using its C-Log and recording 10bit Pro Res HQ to a PIX240.

I forgot to add this: the C300 has more noise than the F3 but Canon's history of noise reduction should mean that the noise looks more like film grain. With an 8bit image and large amounts of gradations, this grain is actually beneficial because it will dither and help prevent banding.

DAVID

Okay now we're talking about the 4k sensor and possible benefits from being an easy fit in down conversion and so is speculation.

So normally then the debayering compromises the image. If true how much is resolution and colour compromised or does some sort of algorithym put it together in an undetectable way which in practice will mean the Canon will make no discernable difference whatsoever unless put under a microscope?

So normally then the debayering compromises the image. If true how much is resolution and colour compromised or does some sort of algorithym put it together in an undetectable way which in practice will mean the Canon will make no discernable difference whatsoever unless put under a microscope?
Does this help? Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing) (DeBayering and demosaicing mean more or less the same thing.)

As far as "how much is resolution and colour compromised?" then it's a highly complicated subject with no pat answers, just approximations. But as a rule of thumb, if a Bayer sensor was 1000x1000, then deBayering may give approximately luminance resolution of about 800x800, chrominance res of about 500x500. Very approximately.

Hence the reasoning for the F3 sensor to be larger than 1920x1080 - 2456x1372 in this case.

But there's a limit to what the numbers can tell you. Downconverters range from very good to abysmal, and the effects can't be expressed in simple numbers. But generally, if you can avoid a downconversion - avoid it!

So normally then the debayering compromises the image. In the case of the Canon C300, the sensor has a standard Bayer-pattern but it is not a standard de-Bayering readout.