For those who want to see an objective assessment of the C300, see here:

http://blog.creativevideo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/canon_c300_alan_roberts.pdf

Happy reading and real information.

Steve

There are faint null zones due to
harmonic distortion, but the level is quite acceptable.

What is a "Null Zone"?

Impressive results across the board. perhaps a tiny bit noisier at 0db than I was expecting, but no big deal. When you see how well the C300 performs with the XF305 10 bit processing and 8 bit output, it does make you wonder what the next Canon video camera with this sensor will be like. It should be even more impressive, possibly out perfuming and Alexa with the right recording format.

A null zone is where the output frequencies from the sensor or processing cancel each other out. The basic ring pattern of the zone plate explores the frequency response of the camera and is a very effective way to measure resolution as well as any issues with image detail beyond the cameras design resolution. A camera should be able to resolve detail (or frequencies) up to the sensors designed resolution. But if higher frequencies (higher resolution detail) than the sensor can correctly handle are allowed to fall on the sensor (or if there are gaps between pixels on the sensor), there will be some points where some details of the image falling on the sensor may exactly line up with the sensors pixels and this can create false detail. It's not true detail, but a coincidence where the rings on the chart may perfectly line up with pixels on the sensor. As the zone plate uses circles it explores every possible pattern to pixel alignment. This false detail will at certain frequencies match real detail and the two will either add together or subtract from each other and may cancel each other out and this creates the null zone, seen as a series of rings superimposed on the original rings of the chart.
A similar thing can happen if you take an image and electronically enhance it, as you are adding artificial detail. More specifically, a zone plate should create a sine wave pattern (pure undulating wave) if you looked at the signal on a scope. When you artificially sharpen the signal it may get turned into a square wave. A square wave contains many harmonic frequencies, which are multiples of the original frequency. These undesirable multiples will interact with the original pure sine wave frequency and again at certain frequencies cancel out the original signal and at others boost the original through subtraction and addition. This is why you see rings, superimposed within the original rings of the zone plate.

To add to Alister's words on zone plates, their main use in camera testing is to verify the the sensor is not receiving detail that goes above the nyquist limit, i.e. half the sampling frequency of the sensor. To achieve this, the image coming through the lens must not be too sharp. Its normal with pro cameras to include an optical low pass filter to attenuate these higher frequency component sin the image.
As Alan seems to imply, unlike many other single chip cameras, Canon seem to have got this just right, with very little aliasing in the output signal. The biggest factor is that the C300 filter is set up for the camera's video resolution, i.e. 1929x1080, and there are no compromises that accommodate still photo images of much higher resolution. That compromise is what destroys the credibility of SLR video, forcing any serious user to avoid any scenes that have sharp or repetitive edges that generate an array of artifacts including moire.
Alan's is an interesting report based on real scientific measurement rather than reading specs., and then guessing.
I imagine that this camera will be BBC approved soon and available for use by those to whom shallow DoF is the most important thing in town. I only hope that any resulting TV work has other production qualities to be appreciated.

Steve

I only hope that any resulting TV work has other production qualities to be appreciated.

Steve

Well said, sir - I agree wholeheartedly!

Im confused!

Are you saying that drifting in and out of sharp focus won't be enough to win me a BAFTA?

Well, you might need to sleep with the judges as well!

Steve

Reading through the report again and comparing it with his earlier F3 report there are some differences in the way some of the data is presented that I think are a little confusing and could lead to some incorrect assumptions. In particular the noise measurements where for the C300 Alan quotes -54db (with noise reduction) and the F3 -48.5 db, but then the C300 was measured at -6db while the F3 at 0db. Using Alan's own plots the C300 at 0db is -45.5db (without noise reduction). So as expected a bit more noisy than the F3, not less noisy than the F3 as you might first assume from the way the report is written. I am also frustrated by the way in the C300 report the similar RGB zone plate alias results are is noted as a good thing while the similar RGB zone plate results for the F3 were noted as a bad thing.

When I read Mr. Roberts tone in the noise section, he seems to be clearly evaluating the both cameras with respect to the manufacturers claimed S/N ratio. In canon's case he clearly points out several times that canon's stated noise floor is only achievable at -6db with noise reduction on, and with sony he's suggesting that they don't get even close at 0db gain to their stated 64db S/N ration. As the f3 can be used at -3db, it's possible that the camera could improve it's number slightly (or perhaps not), but certainly couldn't achieve it's claimed noise floor at negative gain.

In his comments, he gives both cameras really positive ratings regarding their noise levels.

I found the comments regarding aliasing with higher resolution lenses especially illuminating...

Barry

I imagine that this camera will be BBC approved soon and available for use by those to whom shallow DoF is the most important thing in town. I only hope that any resulting TV work has other production qualities to be appreciated.
This non sequitur seems like it's got some venom attached. What's the backstory there?

Hardly venom. I have an ongoing observation that for many, shooting video with ridiculously shallow DoF is seen by some to qualify the work as cinematic and automatically on a par with the best of Hollywood. Focus control is just one of the cameraman's tools, not a style around which to model whole productions. I can't think of any acclaimed professional release that wallows in shallow DoF to the exclusion of all other cinematic techniques. It seems that at least one poster here agrees with me.

I suppose this is the wrong forum to comment on a fad that is held up by some as a sacred cow.

Steve

I suppose this is the wrong forum to comment on a fad that is held up by some as a sacred cow.

Steve

Hardly. I think that most people here would agree with you.

Regarding the C300, as I'm reading through internet forums and interviews and now finally mr. Roberts reports it's interesting to see what this camera would have been capable of if they wouldn't rushed it and thus gave it a different hardware...

@Alister: thx for the answer.

I too found that a little strange that the resolution and aliasing assessments were done with the zoom and the test results written with respect to the lower perfuming zoom, then subsequent tests found the primes to give better resolution with more aliasing. Assumptions were made about the OLPF and resolution from a lens that was clearly not performing as well as might be desirable. I'm not saying the results are wrong or incorrect, just I would have expected the resolution and aliasing testing to have been done with the best lens, not the worst lens. Clearly some tweaking of the detail settings will be needed to control the aliasing from higher resolution lenses.

According to his charts, the F3 at -3db achieved a -54db Y noise figure in Alan's test which is a fair bit less noise than the -48.5db of the C300 at -6db (without heavy noise reduction). I can't help but feel that Alan likes Canon cameras as he also comments on how the noise looks very filmic, which is unusual for one of his reports which are normally purely based on test results rather than subjective opinion.

Perhaps a case of not so much rushing as providing the market with a camera now, rather in maybe a year's time. Looking at other camera manufacturers that time scale seems to be what's involved in developing a full new camera from scratch after the sensor is available. I Imagine Canon talked to people to discover their reaction to the current C300 and had positive feedback, so put it into production. After a conversation with one of their HD experts, I got the impression that the BBC may have been across developments, even though he wasn't saying much at the time.

If you're making a film a camera now is much more useful.

Hardly venom. I have an ongoing observation that for many, shooting video with ridiculously shallow DoF is seen by some to qualify the work as cinematic and automatically on a par with the best of Hollywood. Focus control is just one of the cameraman's tools, not a style around which to model whole productions. I can't think of any acclaimed professional release that wallows in shallow DoF to the exclusion of all other cinematic techniques. It seems that at least one poster here agrees with me.

I suppose this is the wrong forum to comment on a fad that is held up by some as a sacred cow.

Steve
Never seen it sacred. Lots of people do like it though. There's probably a production or two that use it almost completely (to the exclusion of everything else I couldn't say. Presumably they would still have actors). A couple of Steven Soderberg's works spring to mind. But I haven't seen them in a while.
Anyway there's some people to whom it's a marker of quality. But c'est la vie. Mostly I think what you're seeing is cameras that can do it are falling into the hands of a lot of people who've been winging it on autofocus or whatever for a long time, because that's all they could afford/all the school had until very recently.
You made it sound as though the BBC had some weird policy of lots of shallow focus at the moment and the c300 would make it worse. That was all.

Well said, sir - I agree wholeheartedly!

Unfortunately, this view is all too often used by productions who can't be bothered to employ the use of shallow DoF into their filmwork. So instead, they would rather criticise others who spend the time to help tell a story through correct use of some shallow focus depth.

Any fool can point a camcorder at the action and with deep depth, hit the rec button without worrying about focus too much (or worse still, save on budget by eliminating FP crew).

I'm not saying it should be used ALL the time in a production, but shallow DoF helps me to tell my stories in the way an XF305 simply can't.

Really, a lot depends on the format, what is being shot, for which purpose. It's horses for courses. For example, I produce a lot of music videos and it's what the labels often put in as part of the brief. They specifically request shallow DoF, lens flares, film burn, etc. Unless you actually work in this aspect of the business, it's hard to understand what is actually requested of us by the industry.

Just my 2 cents!

It is very much a matter of using the tool for the job.

Music videos tend to follow fashions, so you use the appropriate tools. A shallow DOF tends to make the talent look good and they become centre of attention. Ten years ago 1/3" a home video look was popular and no doubt in another few years something else will be.

DOF is one of things that you have to make a creative decision about, it's not automatically a shallow or a deep DOF I suspect the original comment was a hope that shallow DOF shouldn't become the new wobbly cam.

I think Kris it was just a call for production values and content and not just a look. Its the one tool that is most overused at the moment and can become tiresome to watch.

I checked out your site and frankly it doesn't apply to you, you pull it off with some aplomb and many of the foetuses with 50mm 1.4 would do well to check your work out.

I do love me some creamy boke. But Film Burn! and those funny square lens flares!
Anyone who wants to run those out of town has my axe, bow, board with a nail in it etc.

Anyway, not knowing much about this stuff, apparently the C300 sensor has a pretty big border plate around it or something covering a fair number of its pixels. This is to give it a good black reference, I think he said. That was interesting. Is that usual?

Anyway, not knowing much about this stuff, apparently the C300 sensor has a pretty big border plate around it or something covering a fair number of its pixels. This is to give it a good black reference, I think he said. That was interesting. Is that usual?
It is normal to have a border of "blanked" photosites around the edge of the sensor, but not usual for there to be so many.

What we know is that the total dimensions are 4206 (H) x 2340 (V) - and the "used" photosites for the C300 are 3840x2160 - hence a surplus of 366 vertically, 180 horizontally.

Canon have made little secret that this sensor has been designed with more than the C300 (as it currently stands) in mind, and easily the most obvious conjecture to make is that it's been designed primarily to 4k dimensions, for some eventual 4k product. This method of directly reading a 3840x2160 window allows bringing a quality 1080 large format camera to market quickly, whilst using the economies of scale of utilising a new sensor primarily designed for 4k.

"4k" isn't defined precisely ( see 4K resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution) ) but it seems highly likely that the active area is 4096x2304, which is generally seen as "16:9 4k". If so, that gives a border area of 4206-4096 (=110) horizontally, and 2340-2304 (=36) vertically - far more as would be expected than the 366 and 180 borders.

This has all been discussed before, and you may like to look at - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-canon-cinema-eos-c300-c300-pl-cameras/504031-c300-sensor.html .

I wouldn't dream of criticising fellow professionals who choose to shoot with a narrow DOF - I was brought up on it myself as a BBC assistant cameraman decades ago when I was a focus-puller on 35mm Arris and Cameflexes, so I do know what I am talking about.
My pet hate these days however is not the over-use so much as the bad execution, ie, going back and fore through focus before settling. Even the choice of when to use it, as in some cookery programmes when only the centre of a sausage is sharp!
If a production needs it as part of the visual grammar to tell a story, all well and good, but please, not just the profligate use of it as we've all seen ad nauseum since someone realised that their DSLR could shoot video ;-)

I see that some of you understood my comment fine. I was referring to the current craze of indiscriminate use of shallow DoF, and not criticising it's use as a tool to occasionally focus (pun intended) the viewer's attention where the director wanted. It seems to me that with the advent of low-cost large sensor video that arrived with the 5DII and later SLRs, a herd of indy wannabe's decided that opressive use of shallow DoF made their low budget efforts into Hollywood big-budget quality movies.
Irrespective of any other basic techniques of good film-making, (lighting, camera movement, moire and aritfacts, etc.) it was (and still is to a degree) the unrestrained use of extreme 'romantic' (sic) bokeh that screamed out 'look at this big sensor stuff - I'm a real pro now!'
That's without mentioning the absence of any theatrical values to the storyline.

Steve

I know what you mean, but eh, it's just kids mostly (some of them quite old kids admittedly). They'll learn. As with those guys who make spite filled xtranormal videos about people who think they're the business because they bought a 7D, I can't see it being worth the emotional energy, personally.

Exactly the same sort of stuff happens slightly further up the chain too. A couple of years ago it was "Make sure we're shooting on Red" "We're putting "shot on Red" in all the publicity" "We're changing the banner of the company web site to add "Now shooting on Red" at the bottom" "We're trying to shoehorn "Shot on Red" into the title somehow" "Production design is down to two crew members working 12hr shifts and we've cut the setups in half, but it'll look great because its Shot On Red!!!!"

People just latch on to whatever they think'll give them an edge, a bit of prestige. It's galling when people fall for it, sure, but mostly they find out or they move on to the next thing.

Anyhoo, pardon my derailing

David Heath:
This has all been discussed before, and you may like to look at - http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/new-canon-cinema-eos-c300-c300-pl-cameras/new-cano...00-sensor.html .


Much obliged. I guess it's just a case of that being how big the sensor is rather than a border that size conferring any particular advantage.

I wouldn't dream of criticising fellow professionals who choose to shoot with a narrow DOF - I was brought up on it myself as a BBC assistant cameraman decades ago when I was a focus-puller on 35mm Arris and Cameflexes, so I do know what I am talking about.
My pet hate these days however is not the over-use so much as the bad execution, ie, going back and fore through focus before settling. Even the choice of when to use it, as in some cookery programmes when only the centre of a sausage is sharp!
If a production needs it as part of the visual grammar to tell a story, all well and good, but please, not just the profligate use of it as we've all seen ad nauseum since someone realised that their DSLR could shoot video ;-)

Brilliant!! The next time a 17 year old tells me he is a DP I will ask him how he would shoot a sausage (or its stand in) on C300 at F1.4, that will catch him out!

We should have a grumpy old filmmaker section. Me first!

Seriously though, I never touched a 5D but I will embrace this camera over the F3 because of its size let alone the image. I use Alan's reports as a foundation to build upon with the great contributions of posters here like Alister. All appreciated folks!

I loved reading the DOF comments so much I have opened a word file with some of them pasted for future reference in my work with some directors. I remember back to when "shaky" hand held camera was all the rage. I knew it was trouble when I was visiting small town Canada and the local auto dealer's 60 second shout at the camera (had to be a vhs shoot ) moved so much I went looking for a Gravol.
I find it annoying that the criteria for some projects is not your eye or experience but whether you have a 5D or not...
So all this to say it is good to find company as we all attempt to survive the misery of some much out of focus content ...