I remember reading a conversation on the cinematography website with Phil Rhodes and I think Jim Jannard about debayering Very confusing for me then and it sort of ended in a stalemate with both sides convinced they were right. Be nice to see an animation explaining it all. Although the new Canon sensor may have a better way of doing things would it improve in a way that would be beneficial I think we can speculate all we want and would be nice later to see some tests. Personally I'm going to say probably not.

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)

I haven't changed my mind, they are cameras for a different markets, If we were talking about the modern equivalent of a HDCAM camera we would considering HDCAM SR or equivalent. There a good chance that the codec in the C300 is better than HDCAM in a camera that is lot less expensive.

As is usual with these things are trade offs going on in designing a camera. Canon should have considered putting a 10 bit HD SDI in the camera, whether there was a problem in doing so only they know. They may have been trying to keep the processing down and therefore the heat inside a compact body.

Re grading, you're not doing shot to shot grading as such, but you can achieve the basic overall look within the higher bit processing of the camera before recording onto 8 bit. This is something that the DITs did with the F900. They'd carry a notebook or memory stick with the different settings for the looks, using the waveform monitor and vector scope combined with the colour charts to do this. With these tools, you can also get the exposure pretty precise as well.

Brian You were advising the guy on that forum 3 years ago about his 16mm shoot school project to avoid using 8 bit and to avoid using HDCAM but then you told me on here earlier that professionals often use 8 bit HDCAM as an example why 8 bit is okay on the Canon.

Sorry I'm confused?

Although the new Canon sensor may have a better way of doing things would it improve in a way that would be beneficial I think we can speculate all we want and would be nice later to see some tests. Personally I'm going to say probably not.

Mark, it sounds like your mind is definitely made up! I think you have firmly
established your thoughts about the C300. I'd like to thank you for your input
here, and I'm looking forward to your continuing input on our XDCAM boards.

Just as a reminder to everyone here, the way we've been doing things on
this site for the past ten years is that we strongly encourage folks to hang
out and participate in the areas representing whatever gear they happen to
own and use. One thing we tend to discourage, however, is camping out in
a forum for a camera that a person has no intention of buying. Instead of
nay-saying whatever equipment you don't like, it's much more productive
and helpful for everyone if that time is spent being active and talking
about what you're using (or want to use).

We've done the 8-bits vs. 10-bits thing for several pages in a row and it's
really gone around in circles quite a bit. The entire discussion remains in
full view for anyone to read through and research.

The Canon C300 is definitely 8-bit, for better or for worse, and that is not
going to change. If there's anyone out there for whom two bits is a deal-
breaker, please read through the previous pages. If you're convinced
that you need 10-bit output regardless of what the image looks like,
then most likely this is not the camera for you.

At this point we need to move forward... since the "anti-8-bit" mantra has
been explained more than a few times, we really don't need to rehash it
anymore (until the camera comes out, perhaps). Any other questions,
comments or issues regarding the C300 are warmly welcome, of course.

Thanks for understanding,

Sorry I missed you at the event too, Chris. Although I did spy Jim Martin bogarting all the C300 posters ;)
Yes, Canon offered to print up the centerfold as well as some from the drive they gave out so we could mount them and put them up on the walls of our store & camera room......those printers really put out very nice prints!

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Brian You were advising the guy on that forum 3 years ago about his 16mm shoot school project to avoid using 8 bit and to avoid using HDCAM but then you told me on here earlier that professionals often use 8 bit HDCAM as an example why 8 bit is okay on the Canon.

Sorry I'm confused?

That's a totally post process, it doesn't involve a camera and the 16mm student film may need more grading than you need with a video camera, where you can pretty much nail the exposure and most of the colour within the camera. The skill levels needed in lighting is higher because you don't have a monitor that allows to to see what it looks like, so they may need that extra help grading. A bigger problem if they're doing a single light transfer on the telecine.

With a totally photochemical process using prints there can be aspects you can't control, so you have to nail lighting contrast by experience and judgement.

Thanks for the FilmTools baseball cap, Jim -- that's good swag!

I remember reading a conversation .... about debayering Very confusing for me then .......... Be nice to see an animation explaining it all.
How about this? HowStuffWorks "Demosaicing Algorithms: Color Filtering" (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/digital/digital-camera5.htm)

Scroll down and click on "Begin Demoisacing algorithm".

What it shows is how each OUTPUT pixel is interpolated from several sensor photosites. Hence a sort of "averaging" process going on - which is why the luminance/chrominance resolution figures fall short of the total.
Although the new Canon sensor may have a better way of doing things would it improve in a way that would be beneficial ........
Direct 1080 read out (as with the C300) means no downconversion. That can only be a good thing.

Additionally, if you DO deBayer the full sensor, you end up with something approaching 4k resolution (and a 4k raster). So for the future, it opens the way to an optimised dual 4k/1080p camera. In that case (for 4k), expect RAW recording, so the deBayering done in software.

Direct 1080 read out (as with the C300) means no downconversion. That can only be a good thing.

In a nutshell, that's pretty much how Larry Thorpe explained it on Nov. 3rd at Paramount.

The short answer is that color information goes to the processor the same way as it would from a three-chip sensor block.

In this pic, L to R:

L. Thorpe, E. Peck, (translator? unk.), M. Maeda, J. Fauer, A. Krudo, S. Nicholson, F. Alcala, V. Laforet

In that case (for 4k), expect RAW recording, so the deBayering done in software.

And start saving up for Canon's version of the Red Rocket ... or a seriously powerful 12+ core PC .... or hope that your NLE adds GPU assisted debayering ;)

Thanks for the FilmTools baseball cap, Jim -- that's good swag!

My pleasure.......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Chris Hurd at 3.41 pm

Thank heaven's for that. Some sanity at last. Great post!

Additionally, if you DO deBayer the full sensor, you end up with something approaching 4k resolution (and a 4k raster). So for the future, it opens the way to an optimised dual 4k/1080p camera. In that case (for 4k), expect RAW recording, so the deBayering done in software.

It's interesting that 4K has no more real information than the 1080p output. Which is a backwards explanation of why the C300 image could/should be superior to the 2-3K bayer image like the F3.

Resizing C300 1080p output to 4K should produce about the same result as capturing 4K from SDI.

Now that we are over the bit argument, a link with some interesting info for the camera:

10 Things You May Not Know About The Canon EOS C300 & Future Of Cinema EOS » Dan Carr Photography - Photography Product Reviews + Ski, Snowboard and adventure photography tips (http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2011/11/06/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-canon-eos-c300-future-of-cinema-eos/)

I hate to drag it back to this, but I'm late to the bit party and I feel like with all these knowledgeable types around I'd be crazy not to.

Haven't we, as a viewing public, been slowly moving towards 10bit presentation as standard? (I have a 10bit monitor, for example. Its not true 10bit but it's accommodating such)

Is that a)totally irrelevant to this argument for technical reasons I don't understand? and/or b) really something that, like higher frame rate standards, has been "any day now" for a decade and truly no one with any real clout cares to push it forward?

"Not in this thread. Go away". is an acceptable response.

In this case and following a discussion I had with a Sony rep about the F3 not having a broadcast standard codec on board, I suspect one of the reasons is keeping the power requirements of the camera down. The RED cameras are power hungry and you really need to keep on top of the your batteries. The Epic appears to be less demanding than the RED One, but it is one of the considerations for the designers.

With the points made in Emmanuel's link, the C300 appears to be one of a family of cameras. The often referred to sticking point is the price, so how it and the family fit in with the competition remains to be seen. Until it's been tested and used on productions, we won't know if the C300 is worth the premium over the base F3.

RED keep their camera costs down because you're more or less buying directly from the factory warehouse, rather than a chain of dealers. There have been a number of products that have done this in the past.

Someone may know this area better, but I suspect the TV transmission chain is 8 bit, so a couple of the bits mightn't be used on 10 bit displays, although still giving high quality with what they're getting.

Now that we are over the bit argument, a link with some interesting info for the camera:

Here's Canon's managing director being interviewed.

Interview with Canon Managing Director Mr. Maeda | Film and Digital Times: News (http://www.fdtimes.com/news/canon/interview-with-canon-managing-director-mr-maeda-2/)

It's interesting that 4K has no more real information than the 1080p output. Which is a backwards explanation of why the C300 image could/should be superior to the 2-3K bayer image like the F3.
That's not what I was saying. (And I think you've attributed one of my quotes to Brian?)

At the root of all this is the fact that "4k" has become a very misused term. Marketing people like short snappy quotes - so "our camera is 4k!" is great to them. Accurate technical descriptions are what they hate - people switch off.

The most important point is to distinguish between a "4k system" resolution and 4k sensor resolution. (Sorry, all you marketing people!! :-) )The former implies full 3840x2160 luminance resolution (see note below), and chrominance dependent on the colour space. A 4k sensor will have 3840x2160 photosites - half green, quarter each red and blue - but that will not, CAN NOT, give full 4k system resolution. It will give it's maximum with a proper deBayer - something of the order of 80% (?) of 3840x2160 for luminance, less for chrominace.

The significance of what Canon are doing is saying that for a 1080p output, we don't need 80% of 4k - just 50% of 4k is 100% of 1080p. And we can get that standard SIMPLY via direct read out. "Simply" here means with little processing, no downconversion, scaling etc. That means lower power consumption, and no downconversion is likely to make alias charecteristics more like you'd expect from a 3 chip design.

It's not true to say that the 4k sensor has no more inherent information than 1080p. What is true is that Canon are choosing to say "with 1080 recording, we'll ignore that resolution *at the readout stage* for the sake of simplicity, that will still give very good 1080, and true 4:4:4 at that". In this case, "simplicity" needs to be seen as a good thing. It's also refreshing to see a manufacturer being so open, and I suspect it's because they know they're on to a good thing.

[NOTE - "4k" doesn't even have an exact meaning in terms of numbers - it's a family rather than a unique specification. I've used the QFHD (Quad Full High Definition) form of 4k for above (3840x2160) as that's most relevant to the C300 here. Note that the full sensor has a lot more photosites than currently being used, which could be used in a future camera for other forms of 4k.]

With the points made in Emmanuel's link, the C300 appears to be one of a family of cameras. The often referred to sticking point is the price, so how it and the family fit in with the competition remains to be seen. Until it's been tested and used on productions, we won't know if the C300 is worth the premium over the base F3.
Yes, this is an interesting point.

Larry Thorpe has said that the C300 will have "brothers and sisters" in a few years. So given the current specs and the typical Japan tradition of incremental upgrades, just one at a time, I wonder how those might be.

The C300 might have a better or worse sensor, we don't know yet. But the C300 is actually an FS100 kind of camera. It's better built, has a Log curve and an additional SDI, but for the rest it's just like the FS100, only the latter also includes 60p and AF.

The question is how much will be a future model with 60p, 3Dlink, LUTs and a better body (actually F3 features) when the C300 is already $20k. Let's not forget Sony might introduce an F4 sooner, perphaps as soon as NAB2012.

And which features will be taken out to make a camera in the FS100 price range? Let's remember that price range is the one that sells in the hundreds of thousands and it's the most profitable segment. Will it be 7bit? (sorry, couldn't resist)


As for 4K , who really cares? Ask any producer and they'll tell you:

-It makes everything way more expensive
-Everything from Terminator2 to Avatar has been done at HD/2K
-There's no distribution channel for it, and won't be for more than a decade or two

Scooting through the latest posts i wanted to add something.

The C300 claims to produce an 8 bit log output - a flatter version suitable for grading. This isn't in camera but the output image is log.

In a typical 8 bit system the colour divisions (256 of them) are distributed linearly through the image from shadows to highlights. But that's not the way light works, light is exponential and a typical 256 bit image wastes values either in highlights or shadows. Now it depends what kind of log file the C300 produces but the potential is that it allocates those 8 bits to the areas within the image that require then. If it's an S log type curve then we should get better shadow and highlight roll off.

Yes the wrapper is 8 bit, easy to deal with, grade etc,. One graded then the final output would most likely be 10 bit+ because that will be linear.

Most bayer HD sensors don't have as much resolution as say a 3 chip 1080p camera because the sensor is dealing with colour recreation etc,. The 4K internally, as mentioned before, would produce a real 1080p resolution image.

If you look at something like the Scarlet. The filter is quite soft (if it's the same as the Epic) and you're probably going to be running in 4k or even 3k which is a windowed area of the sensor. So the resolution and field of view will suffer accordingly. If you want high speed, you'll be at 3k which is like 16mm. To cut that with 4k you'd need to move the camera or change lenses.

Without empirical evidence it's difficult to verify.

I would expect the C300 HD image to have more resolution than the scarlet and perhaps the F3/FS100

cheers
paul

The C300 might have a better or worse sensor, we don't know yet. But the C300 is actually an FS100 kind of camera. It's better built, has a Log curve and an additional SDI, but for the rest it's just like the FS100, only the latter also includes 60p and AF.

With it's internal broadcast accepted codec it's better than the FS 100, However, the C300 seems to be targeting the F3 ^why hasn't it got an on board broadcast codec" market, but the current pricing is placing it against the s-log version of the F3 in the selection process.

To succeed it needs to demonstrate it has positive advantages over the other camera. Perhaps one may be the recording media, which reduces the running cost difference over time.

That's not what I was saying. (And I think you've attributed one of my quotes to Brian?)



I was commenting, not summarizing what you were saying. The C300 acquires the same amount of real information recording in 1080p or 4K, except for what is lost in compression.
At 1080p at each pixel the C300 has full RGB plus a complete luminance measurement. The F3 at each pixel has color and luminance for one color, and estimates luminance and the two remaining colors from the neighboring pixels.
Unless the F3 has far superior read noise performance compared the C300, the Canon puts considerably more information into a 1080p file.
It may not matter if the Canon is shot with an external recorder at 4K, or a 4K projector simply interpolates C300 1080p by adding lines. Either way has the same amount of real information. This is likely also the reason C300 1080p output looks good on the big screen. There isn't the compromise of a 2K bayer sensor.
Red doing 1080p from their high res bayer sensor is more interesting comparison to the C300. Mathematically there should also be less error in building individual pixels in Red compared to the F3. If Red runs the demosaicing algorithm on the PC it may be quite sophisticated. Both Red and the C300 have considerably more real data to work with than the F3.
We may be at the point where web compression is inadequate to see differences.

In a typical 8 bit system the colour divisions (256 of them) are distributed linearly through the image from shadows to highlights. ..........

Is that unique to 8 bits? My understanding is different at the capture end. I though even without log the relationship between luminance and bits was geometric - brighter has more bits per stop.
In editing 8 bit Canon log it might be beneficial to dither to 10 bits.

I was commenting, not summarizing what you were saying.
In post no 313, you quote something I wrote (post no 308) - but attribute it to Brian Drysdale.
The C300 acquires the same amount of real information recording in 1080p or 4K, except for what is lost in compression.......and .....It may not matter if the Canon is shot with an external recorder at 4K, or a 4K projector simply interpolates C300 1080p by adding lines. Either way has the same amount of real information.
No, that's not true. The way the C300 does it is easy to understand. You effectively get the same as a 3-chip camera with 3 1920x1080 sensors. Effectively, full 4:4:4 1080p. Compared to the full chip, it's 50% resolution for luminance and chrominance.

But if you take the whole sensor and do a "true" deBayer, you'll end up with a 4k (3840x2160) raster - the question is what the "real" resolution will be. The actual figure will depend very heavily on the deBayering algorithm used, but something like 80% for luminance may be a decent ball park figure. Hence something like 3000x1725 - hopefully better with a good algorithm.

http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/articles/assets/Debayering_API.pdf gives some good detail, and compares a poor (but very easily processed) algorithm ("nearest neighbour") with more complex ones giving better results. See why the 80% is such an approximation?
At 1080p at each pixel the C300 has full RGB plus a complete luminance measurement. The F3 at each pixel has color and luminance for one color, and estimates luminance and the two remaining colors from the neighboring pixels.
But the F3 doesn't have a 1920x1080 Bayer sensor. See my previous post (no 293, page 20), it's about 2456x1372 effective. Hence, using the 80% estimate, I'd expect output luminance resolution of around 1950x1100 - just what you'd want pre-downconversion! See why Sony chose the 2456x1372 figures? :-)

For 1080 output, there shouldn't be much difference in perceived resolution between the two - but the C300 will be able to make it with far simpler processing. Another sign of that should be if you compare the difference in power consumption between the two cameras.

This writeup from Adam Wilt provides some good details on the C300

Quick Look: Canon EOS C300 LSS 1080p Camcorder (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_look_canon_eos_c300_lss_1080p_camcorder/)

Regarding the bit depth, it shouldn't be controversial.

* Yes, 10-bits is more than 8 and carries more information.
* 8-bits is enough for many productions.

The real question is what YOU want to achieve with it. If you are a heavy grader, every time you see contours, you'll wish you had more bits. If your style is more modest grades, you'll be perfectly happy with 8-bits.

It's clear that using an existing chip is the reason for 2K and 8-bits. Canon had a choice: release an 8-bit cam or delay the launch by months, a year, or more. They chose 8-bits, now. For this particular product.

The question isn't whether 8-bits is enough for the market. Is 8-bits enough for you, your shooting and processing style, and your end product?

It's clear that using an existing chip is the reason for 2K and 8-bits. Just to clarify Jon's post: existing chip = Digic DV III image processor.

This writeup give some good detail on the C300

Quick Look: Canon EOS C300 LSS 1080p Camcorder (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_look_canon_eos_c300_lss_1080p_camcorder/)
If you only have time to read two articles about the C300, they should be the above and Chris's initial write up, linked at the beginning of this thread. As usual, it's hard to fault anything Adam Wilt says.

It may be worth making one small clarification though. Adam says:
The super35mm-sized, 24.6 x 13.8mm sensor is “quad HD”: 3840x2160. The CMOS sensor uses an RGB Bayer-pattern ......
The actual sensor is 4206 x 2340 (according to the Canon website) - though the actual read photosites are less, 3840x2160. In the case of the C300, the difference may be academic - BUT it's a very strong pointer that we are likely to see a more advanced model.

QFHD (3840x2160) is only one "4k" resolution (see 4K resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution) ) With the sensor Canon have developed, it's capable of more than QFHD, capable of other forms of 4k. For example, from the wikipedia link: "In July 2010, YouTube began streaming certain videos at 4096 × 2304 pixels (in the 16:9 aspect ratio)....."

I'm also relieved to find that I and Adam are in broad agreement over true deBayer resolution. (Page 2, scroll about half way down.)
2x2 decoding in this manner gives you resolution measured in TVl/ph limited to 50% of the photosite-per-scanline count, whereas sophisticated deBayering gives you about 80% of the photosite-per-scanline value.
Well worth reading Adams explanation of what the camera is doing and how it compares with normal Bayer sensors.

Chris Hurd at 3.41 pm

Thank heaven's for that. Some sanity at last. Great post!

I second that, Thanks Chris....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

This writeup from Adam Wilt provides some good details on the C300

Quick Look: Canon EOS C300 LSS 1080p Camcorder (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_look_canon_eos_c300_lss_1080p_camcorder/)

Interesting article, although I would say that the shoulder rig shown is the most horrendous piece of industrial design I've ever seen. Fortunately, it's early days and I hope the 3rd party manufacturers will come up with a more elegant piece of modular design, rather than an improvised piece.

Canon aren't alone in this, it's surprising how many threads there are in forums about this every time a camera comes out. Yes it's modular, but the ergonomics of how the modules fit together should be part of the design. It's nothing new, the Panaflex is modular and it goes back to the early 1970s and there's a lot of hand held in "Jaws" on the boat. It's heavy, but balanced.

This is more of a problem when the camera is kitted out with 35mm cine lens accessories than in the neat looking configuration with the still lens when it's more Canon Scoopic

In this case and following a discussion I had with a Sony rep about the F3 not having a broadcast standard codec on board, I suspect one of the reasons is keeping the power requirements of the camera down. The RED cameras are power hungry and you really need to keep on top of the your batteries. The Epic appears to be less demanding than the RED One, but it is one of the considerations for the designers.........

The Sony F3 MPEG-2 codecs at 25Mbps and 35Mbps are fully broadcast compliant. As a matter of fact, MPEG-2 is broadcast compliant all the way down to 18Mbps (and less) for live transmissions and digital broadcasting. It is true that a few networks require a higher bit rate and 422 color space codecs for programing acquisition but often, a specific list of cameras is what is approved or not. For example Discovery Channel and National Geographic usually favor 50mbps 422 but have approved the F3 on board codecs for acquisition because they evaluated the front end as being of exceptional quality. The additional amount of power that may be used to encode at 50mbps 422 vs 35mbps 420 is very minimal.

Thierry.

The on board codecs are not currently accepted by the BBC for HD, you can use them for SD. There could be a case by case consideration going on, but the BBC's concern seems to be increasing the compression errors through the post and transmission chain, rather than the actual camera front end.

I'd clear with the commissioning editor involved before using the internal codec, productions shot using 35 Mbps as the main recording have been rejected by BBC quality control.

I agree there wouldn't be much of a difference in power terms and it'll be interesting to see if Sony increase the on board to 50 Mbps, since I heard from a BBC senior cameraman that the electronics were the same, Of course, that could be just a rumour he'd heard.

I guess the Beeb rules then :)

Following up your point, Discover have 3 tiers, so the 35 Mbps should fit in the Silver.

Discovery HD Gold, Silver, Bronze tiers | In depth and practical guide to television production | eyefish.tv (http://eyefish.tv/production-guide/high-definition-production/broadcasters-requirements/discovery-hd-gold-silver-bronz)

The BBC currently only have the higher standard, if they reduce it remains to be seen as HD becomes more common on their channels. Although, I suspect the chances are that, with the reduced cost of the external recorders, their current minimum broadcast codecs probably will stay in place.

To anyone who has handled the C300 and the FS100: how would you compare the side handles? They seem to have a similar design.

If no one here has, Adam Wilt discusses the handle.

Quick Look: Canon EOS C300 LSS 1080p Camcorder (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_look_canon_eos_c300_lss_1080p_camcorder/)

.............
For 1080 output, there shouldn't be much difference in perceived resolution between the two - but the C300 will be able to make it with far simpler processing. Another sign of that should be if you compare the difference in power consumption between the two cameras.

You are equating quantifiable camera performance with actual camera performance. Unless the use of the camera is shooting line pairs the precise percentages of performance you quote aren't highly meaningful.

The Canon is sampling much more real data than the F3. How well the F3 can sharpen up blurry line pairs post capture is only moderately relevant to the real world of image capture.

To anyone who has handled the C300 and the FS100: how would you compare the side handles? They seem to have a similar design.

In what I can see from the pictures and taking in account canon's experience with control and ergonomics on DSLRs, I think the C300 is going to be much better fit for filming handheld.

Thierry.

I found out this regarding Canon Log Gamma (from Dan Carr):

"you will be able to enable what Canon are calling 'View Assist' to preview a final graded look on the camera’s LCD screen. So whilst recording to the CF cards or out via HD-SDI is happening with Canon Log Gamma, you can see an estimation of the final graded outcome on the 4″ LCD or in the viewfinder. It is not possible to send this View Assist signal out via HDMI or HD-SDI as they did not want people to accidentally think they were recording Log Gamma"


Laforet has said, as politely as he could, that both the VF and the TFT are useless, (just as expected). So if you really can't 709-LUT the HDMI/SDI for monitoring while recording Log in the CFs, you're supposed to focus with a Log image with a proper external EVF/monitor? And do we need a very expensive Cinetal to avoid sending a Log image to the Producer/Client?


I'm really wondering who is Canon targeting with this camera. It's too expensive for the DSLR crowd and it lacks too many essential features for professional work.

In what I can see from the pictures and taking in account canon's experience with control and ergonomics on DSLRs, I think the C300 is going to be much better fit for filming handheld
Unless you use a FF which will force you to put the EVF just behind the camera or at a side, at the end of the body, as there's no other place left. Then the entire thing (camera, PL lens, FF, Mattebox) will be protruding your body and you'll need very long rails with lots of weight on the back to balance al those Kg in the front.
I've seen this in every C300 acessory video from Zacuto, ARRI, etc.

Look at this picture with ARRI accessories. An external EVF has to be placed sideways, parallel to the camera body and at the end of it. Then you'll stick your head to the EVF, which means the entire package will be in front of you, and you'll have to counterbalance that protruding the rods with lots of weights on the back.

I think this is a problem with all these compact cameras like the Epic. They're getting to the stage where the camera is being attached to a heavy lens and it's accessories, so they're going to be naturally front heavy. Given that this camera doesn't need a large battery or a 400ft magazine of film, there probably is no option but to put an inert mass towards the rear.

Adding weight for balance is something that has been done in the past, camera operators have used 1000ft magazines to balance out the camera. The early Steadicams sometimes had small weights attached for balance. It can still be a light weight shoulder rig, but there should be better design than a mass of tubes cobbled together.

One of the things that I'm looking forward to with this camera is to put pressure on other CMOS camera manufacturers to reduce the rolling shutter artifacts. Canon has certainly set a new high water mark for minimizing skew in this price range from what I've seen in the sample videos.

Does anyone know why the power consumption is rated at 11.4w for *normal* use (with both EVF & LCD on) but the max power consumption goes all the way up to 20.9w? (all according to Canon) Canon DLC: Cinema EOS Frequently Asked Questions (http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/misc/cinemaEOS_faq.shtml)

That is a huge increase of 9.5 watts (an 83% jump).

I bring this up because I have been thinking about why Canon took certain routes like 8bit SDI output. Both the AF100 and FS100 have 8bit outputs and the reason for Sony doing this is power consumption. The internal processing and DSP bit depth must be high enough for a 10bit output. A 12 or 14bit DSP in the F3 requires more processing power than a 10bit DSP in the FS100. By using a 10bit DSP in the C300, power consumption is reduced.

Another possible explanation is the processor taken from the XF300 because it also only outputs 8bits.

Lower power consumption equals smaller batteries, which fits in with the C300's small footprint.

The internal processing and DSP bit depth must be high enough for a 10bit output. ....... By using a 10bit DSP in the C300, power consumption is reduced.
From the same Canon site site you link to:
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.
Whatever the reason for 8 bit output over HD-SDI, it's nothing to do with a 10 bit DSP. That's not what the C300 has. I did think Jon Fairhurst and Chris answered this a few posts back. As Chris said: "Just to clarify Jon's post: existing chip = Digic DV III image processor. "

My own belief is that power consumption has far more to do with the general mechanism by which read out occurs, rather than bit depth. The way in which the C300 reads out is fairly simple - hence low power consumption. The way in which the F3 does it requires far more arithmetic (independent of bit depth) - hence more power. It's the deBayering and downconversion that consumes the power in the F3 - two things the C300 doesn't need to do.

The same argument for the FS100 and the AF100. They likewise have far lower power consumption than the F3, and I increasingly think this is down to the way the chip is being read out - simplified in the same (or similar) way to the C300. But it's because they don't have the precise QFHD chip dimensions that they (especially the AF100) don't give the performance of the C300. Direct read in these cases gives lower than 1920x1080 resolution, and it's because the AF100 only reads one quartlet block in four that it's sensitivity is so much lower than the FS100. This theory matches observed results quite well for resolution, sensitivity, power consumption, and such as rolling shutter.

I found out this regarding Canon Log Gamma (from Dan Carr):


Laforet has said, as politely as he could, that both the VF and the TFT are useless, (just as expected). So if you really can't 709-LUT the HDMI/SDI for monitoring while recording Log in the CFs, you're supposed to focus with a Log image with a proper external EVF/monitor? And do we need a very expensive Cinetal to avoid sending a Log image to the Producer/Client?

I'm not sure if this is the polite statement you are referring to

--"We found ourselves using Zacuto EVFs with the camera and the new Marshall monitors with built in waveform graphs with excellent success." -- (sorry if that's not it...but I couldn't find any other mention of the monitors on his blog...but maybe he said it on stage with the canon folks...I missed that :-) )

..but I think you're reading him wrong. Useless would be an interesting choice of words, as the EVF and LCD on the C300 are both of extremely high quality. The best I've ever seen permanently attached to a camera...in the same range in terms of contrast and resolution to RED's excellent monitors. This statement seems to be directed at letting folks know that external monitoring was no problem.

In addition, Laforet, during a talkback at friday's event, talked a lot about C-log and how it doesn't look like the typical muddy mess we are accustomed to. He said in fact it's quite pleasant to view and that he had no problem sending rough cuts to the producer in c-log without grading.

Barry

If C-log is both easily viewed for focus and gradable, that's a unique combination.

One thing that hurts CineStyle is that the absolute black level is somewhat lifted on the 5D2. The false colors on my Marshall monitor (after a firmware upgrade) see black fine on "Normal", but it never sees black on "CineStyle" even with the lens cap on.

I'm not sure if this is the polite statement you are referring to

--"We found ourselves using Zacuto EVFs with the camera and the new Marshall monitors with built in waveform graphs with excellent success." -- (sorry if that's not it...but I couldn't find any other mention of the monitors on his blog...but maybe he said it on stage with the canon folks...I missed that :-) )
No, that's not the quote. It's not written anywhere, it's on a long phone interview -somebody posted the link here-.
He was directly asked about the quality of those and why they never used them (as can be seen on the BTS video) After some laughts, he said something like, "er.., let me put it this way. They're nothing you'll be going to use to shoot with". He tried to be polite about it, understandably as he's on Canon's payroll.

No, that's not the quote. It's not written anywhere, it's on a long phone interview -somebody posted the link here-.

Was there supposed to be a link in your post? Thanks.

The RC #100 C300 with Dir. Laforet & RED ScarletX | fxguide (http://www.fxguide.com/therc/the-rc-100-c300-with-dir-laforet-red-scarletx/)

the podcast is rather long at 2hrs, there's an interview with Laforet somewhere there.



Here are the exact words, when asked about that and been told by the interviewer that F3's VF was the worst thing about it, how whas it on the C300:

"I'm going to bite my tongue on that one… I.., I don't think people will use C300's VF or LCD screen as much as they'll be using external EVFs and Monitors. Let's put it that way"

I suspect that's no great surprise, unless you're using it in their basic hand held mode you'd be needing the 3rd party V/F accessories. There all kinds for mods now out for the F3, so the C300 would be in the same position.

On a sunny day the RED One LCD screen can be a bit difficult to view at times and you need to have very good close vision in order to use it for shoulder hand held, so I'd assume that the Canon has similar limitations.

Perhaps the C log is more hypergamma than a pure log curve. With the Sony cameras, even those curves that are intended for grading in post are pretty viewable on the set.