Canon hasn't said who will be carrying the C300?

Hmm. In my world of careful production planning, I would have to label that as
either not thought through or poorly planned. In either case, it doesn't matter in the long run.

Maybe they want the re-sellers to be fighting each other for the enormous prestige of carrying the C300 Canon line, but come on, this is a camera, not blue diamonds being held back by DeBeers.
I cannot imagine that BH, BandPro and ZGC would be told no. So, again we're back to "what are they thinking'. Sorry, but that's the way I see it.

3 of them here in LA.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

I can guess who those three might be. :-)

BTW, Jim thanks to Filmtools for sending out invites to the Canon event. Unlike another product launch across town, Canon treated us all very well. It was an extremely well thought out and organized event that really highlighted the new product and it's usefulness to the industry.

Barry

There are also hidden running costs like the recording media. The overall package needs to costed, including the post production.

Yes, recording media is a consideration, as well as batteries. The overall package might vary from user to user (lenses, follow focus, support gear, matte box, filters...), but you can't capture a single clip without media and power.

FWIW, my understanding is that the C300 will accept normal CF cards (though you might need to buy fast, approved ones), but that Scarlet X requires RED-sourced SSD cards. Fortunately, we can re-use media, so it's not like having to buy single-sourced, overpriced tape, but one still needs to take it into account for the budget.

That said, in this range, I'd be looking at capabilities first, price a distant second. On paper the C300 looks better for fast turnaround and the Scarlet-X looks better for heavy grading. I'd rather have the right tool for the job than try to pinch pennies on the camera and media.

I can guess who those three might be. :-)

BTW, Jim thanks to Filmtools for sending out invites to the Canon event. Unlike another product launch across town, Canon treated us all very well. It was an extremely well thought out and organized event that really highlighted the new product and it's usefulness to the industry.

Barry

It was our pleasure....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Maybe they want the re-sellers to be fighting each other for the enormous prestige of carrying the C300 Canon line

Of course not, it doesn't work that way at all, but I think you already knew that.

FWIW, my understanding is that the C300 will accept normal CF cards (though you might need to buy fast, approved ones)

Since it's recording the Canon XF codec, the list of approved CF cards is exactly
the same as the one that appears on the Canon XF 305 / 300 product pages (http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders/xf305#Specifications)...
absolutely no difference in that regard.

On paper the C300 looks better for fast turnaround and the Scarlet-X looks better for heavy grading.

I think this is a big question for me. My 5dmark11 files seem to fall apart when you try to push beyond a little color or tone adjustment. And having never worked with a red file I'm certainly no expert but given the following assumptions: an extremely clean, properly processed 8 fit file (c300) converted to 10bit for grading versus a flat raw file (scarlet-X) that is perhaps not as clean a capture...is it an absolute fact that the red is more gradeable? (and that was a question not a statement).

At the canon event, we definitely saw films that weren't heavily graded. I think the talking points that came out of the viewings really were the hi ISO, dynamic range--highlight and shadow detail, "film noise", and from xxit, that the camera can work in virtual studio/effects situations, in addition to the primary message of a light, inexpensive production tool. The one film that seemed to have a "look" applied was "Sword" and I'm not sure it was that successful (to my eyes it seemed to be an attempt to squash some smoky shadows due to high ISO filming).

I'm not sure canon was attempting to shove "grading" behind the curtain...I think the biggest message was simply that you can use this camera for theatrical distribution thus striking 35mm prints, showing the films on a big screen and showing looks that had flattering skintones, and thus a look that was pretty mainstream. But it's still a question in my mind. I think Vincent Laforet was trying to get some ungraded footage up last week, but I don't know If he was successful.

Since it's recording the Canon XF codec, the list of approved CF cards is exactly the same as the one that appears on the Canon XF 305 / 300 product pages (http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders/xf305#Specifications)... absolutely no difference in that regard.

This is great info. This place rocks! :)

I think this is a big question for me. My 5dmark11 files seem to fall apart when you try to push beyond a little color or tone adjustment. And having never worked with a red file I'm certainly no expert but given the following assumptions: an extremely clean, properly processed 8 fit file (c300) converted to 10bit for grading versus a flat raw file (scarlet-X) that is perhaps not as clean a capture...is it an absolute fact that the red is more gradeable? (and that was a question not a statement).

Horses for courses.
What depends is how hard one is going to push the grade. 8 bit @ 50mbps is fine for a lot of stuff, but
raw@100-440mbps is going to give a ton more capability.

Convert 8 bit to 10 bit? I am not sure if adding two zeros does little more than increase file size, thought it might help slightly if processing the data through a few differing crunches. Others can weigh in with their experience.

As far as nothing but negative comments, please re-read my posts. I said the C300 made beautiful images and most purchasers would be very happy. BEAUTIFUL IMAGES AND VERY HAPPY.

"Negative comments" are not mine alone and not personal - like yours Sir. I am far from the only one who sees some gaps in what might be SUPER AWESOME. Please remember, it was Canon's vast over-reaching marketing spin that does NOT meet the camera reality. That kind of chest thumping is not savvy or necessary unless you can back it up in spades.

I don't understand what you mean by "Canon's vast over-reaching marketing spin." Canon has not yet begun to market this camera. And it's going to be a fairly hard-to-get item, considering that only a handful of dealers can even sell it. It's not going to be seen all that much outside of broadcast television production.

The Hollywood event was more about the Cinema EOS line (keep in mind that all but two of the products in that line are lenses) and their new Hollywood office and lens repair facility.

I looked around for the original Canon announcement - maybe you can post it for us. I might be WAY wrong here, but I seem to remember something about the 'event' being some kind of industry changing move by Canon - something that would alter Hollywood or some such. The anticipation built on various boards with Jannard going 'all in' by announcing Scarlet would also launch Nov 3rd.

Whatever it was Canon planned, Canon would not even confirm it was a camera - so the rumors spun up the heat (and maybe that was the hope?) that 'this game changer' could be anything, but it was certainly bound to be incredible.

Then, pip, the 1080P@30 fps, 8 bit, $20K 'industry rocker' near fizzle. SORRY NO SONIC BOOM HERE.
The _only_ reason it isn't a total fizzle imho, is because the images look so great and the C300's super low noise - low light capability. And sorry, I will say it again, PRICE MATTERS. Had this thing come out under $10K it would rock. The idea of a 5DMII with mic inputs and SDI out for an additional $16K just leaves me feeling like I was kicked in the teeth. Others feel differently, and that is cool, but so far we have ONE taker and even he is now asking about GRADING. Ask yourself and be honest, is the C300 the camera you would recommend for $20K if the buyer said he wanted the ability to really push the grade hard? And please, we know the answer.

That topic (Nov 3rd announcement) has been discussed at length. The bottom line is that it was an historic announcement from Canon's perspective (new market, products, sensor, business strategy, support center.) It certainly wasn't an historic announcement from the perspective of typical Canon DSLR shooters. People who expected a 5D3 or AF100 competitor were disappointed.

But that horse has already been beaten into submission.

Didn't I read where many cams from the first batch will be offered to US rental outfits? Makes good sense on Canons part.

Cheers.

Please remember, it was Canon's vast over-reaching marketing spin that does NOT meet the camera reality. That kind of chest thumping is not savvy or necessary unless you can back it up in spades.
Jacques, all I remember directly from Canon is one single fairly anonymous "poster" advertising a "historic" announcement on November 3rd, which I first saw when Chris posted it here. ( http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-canon-cinema-eos-c300-c300-pl-cameras/500720-something-new-canon-nov-3rd.html#post1682321 ) I don't recall Canon themselves actually saying very much at all after that, certainly not "vast over-reaching marketing spin".

What did happen was that Red made their parallel declaration about also making an announcement on Nov 3rd, and Red did have quite a lot to say in the run up. Let alone all the speculation on forums such as this. But virtually nothing from Canon themselves - I certainly wasn't aware of "chest thumping" on their part. (And I have no direct or indirect vested interest in Canon or any other manufacturer.)

an extremely clean, properly processed 8 fit file (c300) converted to 10bit for grading versus a flat raw file (scarlet-X) that is perhaps not as clean a capture...is it an absolute fact that the red is more gradeable? (and that was a question not a statement).

Speaking as someone who grades films.. yes, absoutly r3d RAW has more options

And there is no such thing as "converted to 10 bit", 0-255 is still 0-255 even when inside a 0-1023 space.

Think like.. i buy 256 ounces of a good wine, and i pour the bottles into a 1024 ounce bucket... i don't somehow convert the 256 ounces of wine into 1024 do i?

I just have a half full bucket.. and a pile of banding issues on smooth graduated surfaces.. like walls, and the cheeks of softly lit leading ladies...

d

yes, absoutly r3d RAW has more options


I totally agree. With R3D files, you can definitely go more directions than any 8 bit file. (I stated exactly the same words as you on another thread last week). I think the question that I meant to ask (and this is totally hypothetical--since there are no canon mxf files out there but one ultra-high iso sneaked shot from the event), is could using a combination of in-camera adjustments and "significant" post grading on the canon produce an equal or better file (1080P of course) when compared to scarlet. Or conversely, is it a given that an R3D will always produce a superior graded image to the canon mxf.

For the sake of argument, lets put this in "highly favorable for canon" framework. Two identical clips shot at say ISO 6400 or higher. One on Red 4k, the other on C300. From "what I've read" the Canon should produce a virtually noiseless image with a full 12+ stops of DR. Let's say that the DP was good and was able to get close in camera on the Canon using the internal 12bits to produce a great 8 bit file. From there, significant but not severe grading ensues. Now to the Red. From what I understand Scarlet would carry a fair amount of noise at this ISO and as Scarlet isn't capable of HDR, would probably be out of bounds on it's optimum DR. Now would that "flat, raw file" be able to produce as good a file as one off the C300?

Sure it's not a fair comparison...so how about at 3200? 1600? 850? Where's the line?

As I understand (and I may be wrong) the red "raw file" is true raw, so other than exposure parameters, all other adjustments are applied as post processing of the raw file. In the canon workflow, some adjustments can be made internally in 12bits prior to the production of the 8bit output file leaving less to do in final grading. So back to the top, red is definitely more flexible... but is it necessarily always more gradeable? (and it's ok to say yes here.)


And there is no such thing as "converted to 10 bit", 0-255 is still 0-255 even when inside a 0-1023 space.


Mostly you are right about this, and I'll not pretend to be an expert in video grading. However, I am an expert at grading in photoshop (as I shoot on a hasselblad, I have a pure 16bit workflow) and some of the techniques I use when bringing in outside 8bit images do see some benefit from bit upconversion. When I wrote the question last week, I did a little comparison here using some standard layered grading in photoshop, using an extremely clean 8 bit image and processing it identically in both 8bit and 16bit workflows. There were differences: both in the histograms and in increased visible banding in the 8bit workflow. It was a subtle difference, but one that did in fact matter. My guess is there are similar subtle differences obtainable in video as well. Furthermore the sensor does play a factor in this part of the equation. I know (again from photoshop) that 16bit files are not all created equal. A properly processed Hasselblad FFF, output to 8bit file is nearly as adjustable as a 16bit tiff output from a 5dmarkii CR2 because simply put, the 5d sensor isn't as good, thus the raw file isn't as clean, and therefore it's 16bit output is really something less than advertised.

Again my original question was purely for discussion's sake. As has been said here now many times: Both these cameras are most likely quite capable of outstanding images in the right hands.

Hi Barry..
today finds me juggleing three features, two of them were both shooting exteriors in the same city at the exact same day & time and i have both shows on my server currently.... the files have time/date stamps

in the one i''m just doing a final pass on currently there is one scene that they had lost sunlight, and shot anyway.. and the REDmx was clearly underexposed when the r3d's were debayered with metadata, but once i changed to print density and ran the ISO & noise reduction up the shots were recoverable, actualy it's a very nice scene... if you watch the film in your local cinema you would not know.

the feature i'm starting to grade next week is shot on F3/444/Slog.. also shooting at the same time, just down the road from the first crew.. the F3's footage looks very clean indeed when shooting into magic hour.. but it does lack the flexibality of the raw workflow.. i can't really make it be anything other than what it is already without jumping through hoops

Now all of these are being finished in Dci2K / P3 so i'm looking a colours that can only be reproduced by a digital cinema projector (or a very small handful of OLED & LED screens), and i'm looking at it on a 16 foot screen.

I don't think any YUV/422 50mbs 8bit codec would stand a even the slimmest of chances in this enviroment (2K/444/P3) - no matter how good the camera is, actualy any YUV/422/8bit even uncompressed would be challenged i would think

Most everything i have worked on has been shot on RED, film, or Alexa in the last few years, but i did grade a doco feature last spring shot mainly on EX3's - so 8bit/35mbs/Long GOP codec - a very good codec... it was far from easy... really, secondaries were tearing like crazy - it was so very limiting... basicly anything beyond a first pass is not possiable... i would expect much the same with the C300.


d

Great post Dermot. Thanks for the short look into the complexity of what colorists like yourself are up against daily. It makes your perspective on the cameras much clearer.

I think how much manipulation you want to do in post really depends on what you're trying to achieve.

Having put looks directly into broadcast cameras with comprehensive paint boxes, you can do quite a lot using that method, including the bleach by pass and other "looks". Of course, once set, you can't change your mind about a look strategy, which can be more a producer issue than a DP one or perhaps even one for the director.

On the other hand, DPs do put their look into the LUT for on set viewing when shooting RAW and the final film looks nothing like they were trying to achieve because everything has been changed during the grade.

From what I read by an extremely fussy DP who had a quick grade using the rushes from the one shorts, the images don't fall apart when pushed. He mightn't have been doing as much manipulation as been suggested here, but he's positive about what he's seen to date (regardless of the numbers) and thinks the C300 should considered as an option for low budget TV drama series.

Canon seem to have other cameras in the pipe line, so it appears that the needs of people needing more post work will be met by those cameras rather than this one. Not all productions have a lot of grading done in post and the C300 seems to be aimed at them.

When your talking about pro level camera, anything from an EX1 upwards, IMHO the first thing that will make it hard to grade an image is noise. This is simple enough to confirm, take two shots with the same camera at a low gain/ISO setting and a high gain/ISO setting but exposed so the recording levels match, then try to grade those two images. The difference is normally striking.

I hear a lot of talk about shooting at very high ISO's and really have to ask why? I have an F3, it's 800 ISO when using S-Log, frankly I'd rather it was 400, not because it's too noisy, but just because it's really more sensitive than I'd like. There's lots of talk of using high ISO to reduce the amount of lighting that you need, but in reality that argument doesn't work. If you shooting a lit set, maybe with practicals, then you'll still need decent lamps to light the seen so the practicals are not blowing out. If your shooting outside during the day then any fill lamps still need to be just a bright as you generally working against the sun or ambient light. At night in a city your going to be working against the general street lighting, store fronts etc.

So what's key is how much noise the camera produces in the 400 to 1000 ISO range IMHO. This, I believe is the comfort zone we should be working in. More than this and the camera is becoming too sensitive.

After noise comes bit depth. Bit depth becomes more and more critical as the dynamic range of the camera output increases. An 8 stop camera using 8 bits is 1 bit per stop, not so bad perhaps, but when you start going up to 10, 12 even 14 stops then 8 bit struggles, there just isn't enough data. Now you can take an 8 bit output and convert it to 10 bit using a decent interpolation algorithm that will calculate the expected in between values. This can bring a reasonable improvement over raw 8 bit as it's not that hard to estimate what the in between values should be with some accuracy. It's not going to be as good as an original 10 bit source, but for not so severe grading it can work well.

Where you really get in to trouble is when you start using highly compressed 8 bit codecs with high dynamic ranges and a lot of noise.

All of this brings us back to the key differentiator between all these new super 35mm cameras. That differentiator is the operator. A skilled operator that appreciates the limitations of the camera and workflow that he has chosen will be able to produce a great image. I'm quite sure you will be able to grade C300 footage, provided it has been shot in a manner sympathetic to the way it's recorded and processed in post. Even with just an 8 bit output it will surely benefit from recording on to a higher bit rate codec, maybe with a NanoFlash or Samurai.

As for Red and "Raw" well if a lossy 5:1 compressed codec counts as "Raw" then so be it. It's only really "Raw" in so much as it has not been de-bayered. Which is more "Raw" non de-bayered but compressed or de-bayered but uncompressed (F3)?

Great post Dermot. Thanks for the short look into the complexity of what colorists like yourself are up against daily. It makes your perspective on the cameras much clearer.

Yes, that is interesting. Especially considering it can now be done at the Scarlet price.

As far as grading and noise, the common use of the simple term "gain" by manufacturers is unfortunate as camera fall well out of spec at the highest settings. I think using ISO terminology when the camera is still in spec, and then Hi1, Hi2 etc. beyond the highest ISO is better as it makes it clearer that the resulting file might not match well.

A high sensitivity camera isn't just capable of shooting in dimmer light, it's capable of more accurately recording at all gain settings. The Epic likely has more read noise at base ISO than the F3/C300. That likely lowers true resolution.

Alsitar;
you asked;
"Which is more "Raw" non de-bayered but compressed or de-bayered but uncompressed (F3)?"

having a rare chance to have an entire feature shot on each in my suite at the same time... definatly the flexibality award goes to the r3d's... the F3 is an entirely awesome camera in it's own right, but does not have the same level of malibality in post

I typicaly have 10 -14 days to grade a film, and it is really very common for the director, DP & myself to vary the look substaintly while we try things out... raw is a real world helper in this, as is having the raw in my timeline so i can re-set debayer choices interactivly before heading to fine tune in the software.

We are somewhat more limited in where we can go with the F3's footage... not impossiable, but certainly slower and certainly harder to play "what if"...

I don't have alot of experience with 8bit/422/compressed footage in this enviroment.. and what experience i do have has taught me to be very cautious, there is hard limits to run up against, and one does not have to go far to reach them.

Everything changes if you are finishing in 709 for broadcast & web tho... there i would expect the C300 to be in the same range as the XDcam's in terms of post flexibality... acceptable trade-off for the size and cost.

But the same trade-off's may not be worth the trade when working in P3.

Noise is not always the limiting factor, there are very good noise reduction options on the table now.

d

I suspect most of the productions that the C300 will be used on won't have 10 to 14 days for the grading. Given how post production times are contracting and everything seems to become more squeezed, I gather 2 days for 45 mins screen time is a typical TV grading schedule.

...IMHO the first thing that will make it hard to grade an image is noise....

Noise can actually make things easier. A good dither masks hard contours on smooth surfaces. The problem (as you noted later in your post) is too much compression. Compression can flatten the macro blocks. That actually hides the noise and creates gradients everywhere. In that situation, the noise no longer helps smooth the transitions. The noise also puts more stress on the codec so the quality goes down further. It can then add yet more errors to the flat macro blocks, causing them to dance between two bad levels. Uncompressed, it removes contours; compressed, it adds them.

But the noise isn't the problem. The problem is that compression is non linear and is less effective as noise rises.

...
As for Red and "Raw" well if a lossy 5:1 compressed codec counts as "Raw" then so be it. It's only really "Raw" in so much as it has not been de-bayered. Which is more "Raw" non de-bayered but compressed or de-bayered but uncompressed (F3)?

Alister, I just want to point out that I had a similar discussion w/ a Sony engineer during an F65 event held at the DGA Theatre in Hollywood. Apparently the F65's RAW is lightly compressed (I imagine not as much as Red's is). The engineer mentioned that performing the compression on the mosaiced image yields better results than demosaicing first and then compressing. So at least it seems pretty clear that compressed RAW is better than compressed demosaiced.

As for uncompressed mosaiced vs. compressed RAW, I think it's important to look at the sensor pattern. If the underlying pattern is Bayer or some variant of Bayer, then uncompressed mosaiced has color interpolation and errors baked into it. Now this is okay if you are not going to heavy grade the image b/c the errors make sense w/ the composition.

But when you dramatically alter the look, the interpolation errors are now based on a look that no longer exists. Almost by definition, the errors will be in a direction that is not where you are moving the image to. (This is because they are based on the current look of the image and you are trying to alter that look significantly.)

So I believe to talk of a demosaiced 4:4:4 image as being uncompressed is kind of a misnomer. In fact, demosaicing itself is a form of lossy decompression.

...
Most everything i have worked on has been shot on RED, film, or Alexa in the last few years...

Dermot,

May I ask, does Avid DS work natively w/ ArriRaw or are you using ProRes? I've heard that ArriRAW adds qutie a lot to the Alexa's image (if that even sounds possilbe).

Dermot,

May I ask, does Avid DS work natively w/ ArriRaw or are you using ProRes? I've heard that ArriRAW adds qutie a lot to the Alexa's image (if that even sounds possilbe).

Peter;
Yes, DS does support Arri RAW, has since the D21 days, but i don't have any direct experience with Arri RAW, the shows i finished / graded were all ProRez targeted for 1080/709 deliverables... makes for a decent match.

This week is the first time i have worked with Alexa for DCi, and it was only a few pick-up shots, i got these in ProRez as well tho.

After a week with the F3/Slog/P3/DCi show we did a fairly detailed first pass in P3 with the DP, and then a 709 trim pass and sent it off for producer notes, some second unit was shot on Alexa, and i could not have told what camera it was but for the clip names in the timeline.. Arri's "LogC" and Sony's "Slog" are really close in the hands of a great crew.

The RED show got final tweaks and then the 709 trim pass, there is advantages to working off 4K files when targeting 2048x858, and then making a 16x9 1920x1080 show out of it, means working with one scaling operation only, and switching timeline settings to automagicly re-scale from the 4K. Simple and clean!

d

My comments on noise and grading were based on real world tests with codecs including 35/50/100 Mb/s Mpeg 2, ProRes HQ and DNxHD. In every case, the source noise was more important to the end result than the codec used until you got into noise figures better than around the 58db mark. With less noise than that then codec choice does become more critical.

When you have a low noise camera and you start to push and pull the image the noise almost inevitably becomes more visible. Yes, there are noise reduction software processes, but invariably these also reduce micro contrast and resolution, even the very best noise reduction programmes struggle to tell the difference between noise and things like rain, fluttering foliage and subtle moving textures.

Whether un-compressed de-mosaiced or compressed bayer data is better, this will depend on many factors and I'm no expert, but I suspect a lot will depend on the compression ratio, motion and the colour palette of the scene and quality of the de-bayer algorithm. The issue with de-bayering is that you have more data after de-bayer than before and perhaps this ends up as the key to why compressing pre de-bayer is preferable, especially at higher resolutions. Compression artefacts on the pre de-bayer luma signal will degrade the colour fidelity and depending on the artefact can affect an area greater than the original artefact due to the way the de-bayer process relies on adjacent pixels during it's calculations. Pro's and cons to both schemes as is often the case, these things are rarely black and white,

The key when your trying to extract the best from any camera is to understand to at least some degree what's going on under the hood. I'm surprised to hear that an S-Log F3 offers so much less grade-ability than a Red. I guess a like for like test is what's needed to really see how much difference there is. Different shots from different projects may not be telling the full story.

I'm surprised to hear that an S-Log F3 offers so much less grade-ability than a Red. I guess a like for like test is what's needed to really see how much difference there is. Different shots from different projects may not be telling the full story.

I do think F3/Slog & AlexaLogC offer very good starting places for aggressive gradeing... and an brilliant starting place for more moderate gradeing as the skin tones look so very good straight away.. but i do think r3d's offer more flexiablilty...

I'm a huge fan of F3/Slog now that i have real world experience with it.

even the very best noise reduction programmes struggle to tell the difference between noise and things like rain, fluttering foliage and subtle moving textures.
Agreed again.. just i'm not finding that noise is the limiting factor that it was a few years ago, it is better tamed with better tools now, and although i have not been feeling limited by noise in recent past sod's law will say the the next thing through the door will be a noisy disaster ;-)

Noise was a issue with a 3D project i graded with Si2K as the camera's a year ago... but that was the last time i have really had to make choices based on noise -vs- softness thankfully.

d

Dear readers,

In the Netherlands you can order the Canon C300 for:
Euro 12,000
GBP 8,269
US dollars 15,000
All prices are exc.VAT

nivo-schweitzer.nl (http://www.nivo-schweitzer.nl/filter)

Have a nice weekend and best wishes,

Menno Mennes