C300 Discussion

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by David Heath

Yes, but as said before, there are two separate issues. Direct image quality, and flexibility in post - an 8 bit image is capable of giving an excellent image, but may severely limit post grading options.

That said, 10 bit in itself isn't enough - it needs to be in conjunction with things such as S-log etc.

Indeed, that's why the current C300 sale price is too high, it needs to be close to the F3 base price, where it's just competing with that camera's internal codec, so it will be attractive to those people who aren't doing a lot of grading in post, or at least no more than they'd do with say HDCAM.

In that case it would be doing what quite a few people were wondering about the F3 at the time, why it didn't have a broadcast accepted on board.

Another point could be if the C300 proves to be an extremely robust, reliable camera, that will attract people for whom that is important. In that case, having the 10 bit or RAW option could slip down the priority list, if the cameras offering those features can't withstand the shooting environment to the same degree.

[Mark David Williams]

I think the C300 has a lot more going for it than specs and they have worked hard to get the look of film. From what I've seen of the footage they have suceeded.

[Brian David Melnyk]

As for the marketing, I wonder how many people sold their cameras in anticipation of buying a new one, and also in anticipation of a 'groundbreaking' camera that might make their camera worth less...
kinda like playing the stock market? Still, a clearer target for the marketing may have been a little kinder.
Anyway,exciting times, but I'll always be a $tep behind the late$t greate$t camera... just phasing out an XH-A1 for a 5D/T3i... still pretty happy, though!

[Bruce Schultz]

Don't mean to be a wet blanket here but 8-bit SDI output is insufficient for S-Log/Log Gamma post grading processes. Having only 256 vs 1024 is a BIG difference and for me is a deal breaker for this camera. Many posts on other forums including my own experiments with 8-bit gamma log footage confirm that 10-bit is a necessary prerequisite for rich detailed color grading in post.

I do like the way the camera handles it's photosites in full 1080 mode - that's new and novel, but it's a little arrogant for a manufacturer to state that 8-bit is "good enough" to a world of experts who know better.

[Thierry Humeau]

Although I own 2 F3s, I am excited by the C300. It's a different beast with a lots of advance features and much better ergonomics. It really departs from traditional camera designs and I can only praise Canon for thinking out of the box. The price of the C300 is just fine when compared to the F3. Just having a nice viewfinder and the capability to record 422 50Mbps worth a few thousand dollars and will make your life much easier. Now people will finally realize that there is no super duper 5D Mark X in sight to replace a camera that separately can stand to sell for $20k on its own. That's a good thing for professionals.

Have a great week-end.

Thierry.

[Henry Coll]

Originally Posted by Bruce Schultz

Don't mean to be a wet blanket here but 8-bit SDI output is insufficient for S-Log/Log Gamma post grading processes. Having only 256 vs 1024 is a BIG difference and for me is a deal breaker for this camera.

I've been saying this form the beginning.

No matter what other things the camera might do, there's an abysm in image quality in 2^8 vs 2^10, even with Log curves.
An 8bit camera in 2011 and for $20k, while others are cheaper and at 10bit 444 or even RAW, is not very understandable. Specially if such camera is targeted at Hollywood, where heavy post is the norm.

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Brian David Melnyk

As for the marketing, I wonder how many people sold their cameras in anticipation of buying a new one, and also in anticipation of a 'groundbreaking' camera that might make their camera worth less...

Yep, in typical impulsive fashion, I sold mine the day after Canon broadcasted their "historic global announcement" -- and man was I in for a surprise; a $20k 1080p30 moping surprise. So inevitable I'm now having a gander at the Scarlet as a viable option, (if I only could figure out how bare-bone I could make it, and just how much more of my music/sound equipment I must sell). Though, before I make yet another knee-jerk move, I wish I knew how soon Canon will release their "Concept Cinema DSLR".

-- peer

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect it's not so much targeted at Hollywood movies, but television is the market where it can either be a B camera or an A camera on quite a few productions. How important the 10 bit 444 aspect is in the market place really depends on how many F3 are used this way compared to the those F3s that either use the internal codec or record onto 8 bit nanoflash.

It's easy to obsess over RAW and 10bit 444, but many productions are never graded or at most get a film look run through on Magic Bullet, with a few minor grading adjustments.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

I read that the CEO of Canon during his speech, asked Hollywood to accept Canon in their community.
Yet almost everybody in this forum agrees, that although this camera is extremely suitable for TV programming, or high end commercials, its not adequately provisioned for cinema oriented material.
1080 50/60p (for TV screens you can get away with 720) ,
4K,
10bit processing or 10bit out
are essential features for digital cinema, all of them absent from C300.

Is the "historic announcement" a historic marketing blunder. Seems, although the camera excels in many ways, disappointed buyers by raising expectations for a very different market orientation.
It gets even more bizarre if you think that Canon doesn't have to protect a high end segment like Sony and Panasonic.

I don't know if the price is very enticing, for episodic TV professionals to abandon Alexa. I know that the crowd that started the 5DII revolution, is totally apathetic.

[Chris Hurd]

Some people here are confusing Canon's "historic announcement" with the announcement of the C300 camera.

That's not it. The announcement is the beginning of the new Cinema EOS product line, which is dedicated to Hollywood / higher-end television production. The C300 is only their very first camera body in that line. The announcement is not so much the hardware itself, but the direction they're taking -- the new market (new for them) that they're going into.

[Daniel Browning]

Ahh... I hadn't thought of it that way, Chris. Makes a lot more sense with that perspective.

[Chris Hurd]

As to the odd complaint about "marketing" -- there has been NO marketing yet for this camera. There was an invitation sent out to a few hundred people saying "save the date and join us in Hollywood." That's it. When you consider that Canon announced their PL zoom lenses back at NAB, and that they were doing this event at Paramount, and that they just opened a 9,000 square ft. service center in Hollywood, the writing was definitely on the wall in large block letters... and the target market could not have been more clear.

Now that the Cinema EOS line has been announced, I'm sure we can expect Canon to begin a marketing campaign.

[Emmanuel Plakiotis]

Yes it does.
Also signifies the difference between "being there" and "internet there"

Many thanks Chris for your input.

[Chris Hurd]

I've been to press events for camera launches before. This wasn't a camera launch... it was the launch of Cinema EOS. For whatever that's worth. Will try to post some photos shortly.

[Gavin Owens]

Firstly, Broadcast is the new cinema these days... look at the migration to starz or HBO (to name a few) by serious cinema actors and directors these days.
Secondly, 1080p is as far as broadcasters are going to go for the foreseeable future considering that broadcast is becoming a web delivery based format and not the appointment to view format we have been familiar with till now.
Thirdly, It is a nice camera and is priced according to the broadcast market it's aimed at. I admit, the launch was very "cinema" based what with Scorsese et al earning a crust by backing the product but by the images I've seen, it offers a stunning quality at a price that will be highly affordable to most programme producing houses...... basically, it suits professionals with clients, it doesn't suit "Hollywood" or "Indie"

All that said, I was holding out for a full frame sensor shoulder mount camera that serves documentary. I'm disappointed by the announcement but also enthused by it.
In 2 years time, this camera will be probably be around 5 grand and improved by firmware....
Scarlet, on the other hand, is a dedicated cinema camera that will cost you more on hardware then the Canon C300 (I'm referring to capture drive space, computer capacity, software, etc) and could (by recent reports) be a bit buggy. I would love one though.

In short, Canon have hit the mark and in a very clever way.... They are marking their territory. It's out of my price range (for now) but sets the tone for what is to be a reference camera for broadcast/webcast in the future. If I had the cash and clients to go with this camera, I'd buy it.
My 2 cents....
Best
G