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

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"

Fwiw.. He goes on to say that these were prototype cameras and that canon may have changed the monitors prior to release. I don't know that they did. But I can tell you that canon had zacuto's evf mounted on several cameras at the event and so the comparison was quite easy to make-- the onboard monitors are in a completely different league. My very first impression of the camera when I walked up to the stand was that the 4" LCD was quite focusable. The evf too. When compared to a larger standalone monitor like the Marshall sure, they might be found lacking...as they should...mostly due to size. But useless? Ill have to say I highly disagree.

Thanks Henry for steering us towards that very candid interview. Laforet spent much of the time singing this camera's praises and talking about its place in the market between the f3, Alexa and the red and points out some of the distinct advantages the c300 has.

A question for those who have seen the camera in person. From the pics it seems that all the playback functions rest on the monitor/XLR attachment. Can you control the playback functions without it?

The Laforet interview is interesting as he compares it to the Alexa. He speaks as if the IQ is clearly better than the F3. I wonder if he has shot with the F3? The F3 images are very sharp. Which some people take as ideal, others as not film like.

I realized that the C300 ergonomics designed to be able to shoot stills. Put metering and autofocus in that body and it's a hybrid camera. Canon was clearly thinking of rails as optional. A design choice perhaps not appreciated by the core group who aren't interested in normally using the camera that way. Laforet calls the camera ugly. But look how the handgrip works with the EVF. Would he rather hand hold the C300, F3, or Scarlet?

Canon is clearly thinking ahead with the design of the camera. I wonder if there's space for FF35 sensor?

A question for those who have seen the camera in person. From the pics it seems that all the playback functions rest on the monitor/XLR attachment. Can you control the playback functions without it?

Yes you can. On the side of the camera below the second selector wheel are two buttons. One is for Index/Stop and the other is for Play/Pause. Pretty much every button on the monitor/XLR unit is duplicated on the camera (except for the audio controls for the XLR input channels -- I believe).

*** Larry Thorpe of Canon is planning to talk on a live webcast tonight (11/17/2011) @ 6:30 PM EST. Just heard it,

Jtown.tv (http://jtown.tv/)

The setups I have seen so far on the EF version do not use the traditional tripod collar, will this fatigue the lens when all of the accessories are attatched ?? I know that it was normally used to de-stress the camera side on DSLR's but is the lens side strong enough for no collar plus accessories ??

Not to bring it up again, but I had a fun conversation with Dana Christiaanson at the Canon Hollywood Service Center on Thursday night. We were there for the showing of "XXIT" followed by Q & A with Dana and Jung Ahn, Sr Pro Tech rep from Canon. Many questions were asked and, of course, about the 8Bit issue. Dana repeated that there were no issues and the camera performed extremely well. Most were amazed about the low light performance and how few lights were used. In the cable car scene, they used about 4 Rosco LitePads (3x12,3x6,3" circle) placed inside the car....and everyone was quite impressed.

As for the 8bit, Dana said he only found out about it when they went to prep at the Paramount theater 2 WEEKS before the event. All through the shooting, green screen, and editing, he had no idea it was 8 bit.He said he cringed when he heard, expecting the 4K projector to show problems, but then was blown away when they watched it.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Interesting comments, if you haven't seen this .....

First Look: Canon EOS C300 Cinema Camera (http://www.studiodaily.com/main/news/headlines/13554.html)

Cheers.

I'm not totally convinced that it'll have the level of impact that they're mentioning. With multipliable cameras those daily set up figures are already manageable and 3 day shoots aren't unusual on shorts. The factors that add to production times tends to be things other than the camera and the comments about large crews etc sound rather similar to those made during the early 1970s.

BTW, We should have pricing info by mid-next week.....I see there has been some price info posted for Europe on various sites....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I don't know if I'm allowed to mention names, but a large UK dealer is advertising the C300 without lens for about £12,500 (excl VAT). Equivalent F3 pricing is just below £10,000 from the same dealer.

Base F3 pricing in the US seems to be about $14,000 - *IF* the same differential applies, that predicts the US price of the C300 to be about $17,500.......?

German website has it listed at €12,000.

From those figures Canon seem to be pricing the C300 to match up against a F3 fitted out with a Nanoflash. Of course, those are the product release selling prices and how much you could negotiate a price from a dealer or what it will be in six months time is another matter.

Not to bring it up again, but I had a fun conversation with Dana Christiaanson at the Canon Hollywood Service Center on Thursday night. We were there for the showing of "XXIT" followed by Q & A with Dana and Jung Ahn, Sr Pro Tech rep from Canon.


I thought XXIT was a good demo for the camera. The low light scenes looked great. The highlights seemed somewhat blown in the final daylight scene, however.

With the Laforet short I was distracted by the color cast, and trying to figure out if he was shooting near mid day. I guess for a camera demo I prefer hot women, in a city at night, with a good sound track. Hopefully the gangsta short phase is just a phase.

I'm looking forward to a comparison of low light shots between the F3 and the C300. We know the F3 is clean but how does the detail and texture compare?

I'm not totally convinced that it'll have the level of impact that they're mentioning. With multipliable cameras those daily set up figures are already manageable and 3 day shoots aren't unusual on shorts. The factors that add to production times tends to be things other than the camera and the comments about large crews etc sound rather similar to those made during the early 1970s.

The primary advantage of faster cameras is the ability to use lower power lighting units when a scene has to be lit from scratch, or less of them when there is existing lighting within a scene. To clarify, lower power doesn't mean smaller, because a smaller source delivers a different look than a larger one. For those with limited access to lighting and lighting control, it does mean that one can shoot a scene under practical or ambient lighting if necessary. But the "you don't need lights any more" argument has always been a question mitigated by the answer: how do you want it to look? If the existing or ambient lighting has the right look for the results you want, then great, it will work and setup time can indeed be reduced. If more stylization is required, then the only real advantage is that you can save on power requirements.

After weeks of shooting with the F3/S-log, I was bemoaning the fact that I rarely got to see what that fast sensor could do, as I was always having to build the ambience from scratch. We shot a big night exterior on a backlot and had it been a real city environment I could have boosted the gain and then lit the foreground accordingly; instead I had to create ambient lighting in all directions. Certainly I was able to create a more interesting background, but on that night we had to drop a shot and I know I could have avoided it with the other scenario. Finally in our last week I got to stretch the camera's low light capability when we shot a conversation in a moving car at night, on a process trailer. Normally I would have to incorporate various lighting gags around the perimeter of the trailer to recreate the ambient lighting effects, but this time I just gave a soft front fill that dimmed up and down slightly, set the cameras at 12db of gain at T2.8 (minimum aperture on the zooms) and away we went. The rear window had tint so it was still a tad dark back there but you could see plenty of detail and highlight. The streetlights and storefronts cast a very realistic and dynamic amount of light across the windshield and into the actor's faces. The result appeared very "unlit" and natural. At the end of the night we pulled the cameras off the trailer and did a couple of drivebys on a badly lit section of street. The images were pretty amazing, being brighter than the eye, although the headlights did cause a vertical smear (even the hero car with ND6 on the headlights). However it would have looked a lot better if we could have picked a location with a more balanced amount of ambient light, and less gain boost.

The notion of shooting with just practicals is not bad in theory, but it does come with a price. Any light fixture in the frame that is going to provide enough illumination to light a face is also going to read very hot to camera. That's OK if that's a choice, but if one wants to present a dark room, having a table lamp that is throwing blowout-level intensity onto the wall behind or the table below may not be conducive to that look. Even with the low light capabilities, I still find myself dimming down practicals so that they read appropriately to camera, then recreating their effect with other units.

In "XXIT", when Nicolette Sheridan is wandering the streets of the city, I noticed some very hot background elements such as a completely blown out storefront directly behind her. I found that distracting. While it is amazing to be able to shoot under lower light than ever before, the "found" aesthetic (that will no doubt become a trend just like shallow focus before it) is right for some projects and not for others. Balancing light levels, whether high or low, is part of the cinematographer's job. One of the reasons that I embraced the 1DMKIV over the other Canons for the past two years was the ability to crank it up and shoot my interiors at 1250 and night work at 2500 ISO (once or twice at 5000), but I saw those as added options for the toolkit, not a reason to control the lighting any less.

Charles,
I agree 100% on what you wrote. Lighting is what differentiates amateur from professional work, NOT the camera used.

Those thinking a more sensitive camera will take away the necessity of lighting and all the grip vans, can only come from the ENG world. For anything scripted, on the other hand, lighting (and negative lighting) is essential. Whatever stock speed you have, you still have to fight the sun outdoors or indoors with window light. Shooting at night or in closed indoors with a more sensitive camera will require as well the same amount of lights and grip trees, the only difference is the overall amount of wattage will be lower.

I have to say I've been VERY unimpressed with all C300 shorts, as they've abused available light/practicals and therefore the final result ended up being pretty rubbish, compared to professional standards. If I was producing a commercial and got such resuts, I'd just fire the DP or Director, or both. I guess it'd be ok for an indie movie though.

I don't think using lighting resources in these cases really matters, it's more interesting at this stage to see how the camera performs when pushed than when something has an investment in lighting to make it look really good. When people run camera tests they're going to push the camera until the image completely falls apart, so seeing how well it handles difficult situations is a worthwhile exercise for the launch.

DPs are going to make selection decisions on their own tests anyway.

DPs are going to make selection decisions on their own tests anyway.

Well, I know I am. But I see a lot of people on this and other message boards who have made up their mind based on the clips, on the specs, on the price point, on the hype, on brand loyalty, etc etc. How many have already said "I'm going to buy a Scarlet, it's clearly the winner" without ever having seen one in person, let alone comprehensive clips?

Obviously the C300, the F3 and Scarlet are going to be all capable of producing great pictures. So it's essentially a win-win for all.

Since I've only seen the films on line, I wouldn't make any judgements given the effects of compression etc on what you're seeing. I know people do like to see clips on their computer, but until you get the rushes straight off the camera and you've got a correctly set up large monitor you don't always know what you've got.

I guess it would be useful if they did supply the ISO. There were comments on the noise on one film, but seemingly it was 12,000 ISO or something pretty extreme. That's really why you should your own tests, perhaps even more so if the C300 has a comprehensive paint box menu on board.

How many have already said "I'm going to buy a Scarlet, it's clearly the winner" without ever having seen one in person, let alone comprehensive clips?

My understanding was that Epic output = Scarlet output, and therefore existing, readily available Epic clips = what Scarlet can do (minus the obvious differences in frame rate, 5k video, window size vs. res, etc.).

I don't know if I'm allowed to mention names, but a large UK dealer is advertising the C300 without lens for about £12,500 (excl VAT). Equivalent F3 pricing is just below £10,000 from the same dealer.

Base F3 pricing in the US seems to be about $14,000 - *IF* the same differential applies, that predicts the US price of the C300 to be about $17,500.......?

At this occasion, a European short filmed in France was screened as well as the previous films. You could also play with the camera set ups using DSC charts and try some grading with a Quantel Pablo using some of the rushes. Apparently the images "didn't fall apart" when pushed around by one fussy DP.

Plenty of new camera options for next year.

Yes, theoretically the Scarlet should look like the Epic. But until the camera really gets in the wild, who knows what exactly is going to be under the hood. This is RED after all; there have been more than a few changes over time.

I was initially thinking that it showed the most promise of the three, especially with the PL/EF interchangeability (one of the more baffling aspects of the C300--different bodies??). But I hate to give up that high sensitivity.

I don't know how practical it would be to fit and I expect it would void the warranty in modifying the camera, but the P+S IMS would be an interesting option. P+S TECHNIK | Professional Cine Equipment Manufacture (http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-ims.php)

BTW, We should have pricing info by mid-next week.....I see there has been some price info posted for Europe on various sites....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Hi Jim: Any word on pricing?

Thanks.

We're still at least a week away or so......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com