C300 Discussion

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by 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, .......... The C300 is only their very first camera body in that line.

Exactly. Right back at the start of this thread (post no 9) I commented about the sensor, and the implications:

Maybe the most interesting thing is the sensor. 4k, but read as 1080. The speculation .....was that this is how a cheaper model would read it - but a more expensive model would do a true 4k deBayer. Which leads me to think we can expect a further (more sophisticated) model with true 4k. Otherwise there's little sense in using a 4k chip........

So maybe the big two questions now are (1) when do we see the 4k version, and (2) ....... how much will it cost?

[Chris Hurd]

We'll see a 4K version when they figure out a codec for it... !

In typical Canon fashion, it will be overpriced by about 30%.

[Henry Coll]

Canon really rushed the C300

On DPreview, Larry Thorpe talks about the new C300 and says that after Canon being "astonished" by the filmakers reaction towards the 5D, they started a dedicated project to get into this new market trying to overcome all of the 5D shortcomings.
So they developed a brand new S35 sensor dedicated to video. For the rest of it -digital processor and codec-, they "lifted it from the XF300/305", so they could spit a final product in just 2 years (Now I understand where the 300 comes from).

The C300 sensor appears to be handicapped by the cheap electronics of an affordable 709 camera, as the sensor, as Thorpe says, IS capable of 60p, 444 and everything else.

Ok, then, why put a $20k price on it?



There are many more things on a digital film camera than a sensor. And Canon is just a newcomer in this field, as it shows when one carefully exams C300's features. Again I'll compare it to Canon's main target, Sony's F3. They are both $20k cameras (list price), if you'd add the S-Log option to the F3. What are the differences?

-The F3 has Dual-Link, the C300 doesn't
-The F3 has LUTs, the C300 doesn't
-The F3 spits out 10 bit, the C300 just 8 bit
-The F3 outputs 444, the C300 just 422
-The F3 does 1080@60p, the C300 only 30p
-The F3 has simultaneous SDIs with different LUTs applied (Outs+recording+monitoring), the Canon has just a simple SDI plus a consumer HDMI


All of the stuff above is what TV and Film professionals require and use and its implementation is what clearly differentiates product categories IMO.

The C300 is Canon's 1.0 entry in the pro TV/film world. Most kind welcome to them. But I'm a bit perplexed by the fact that while they are entering this market with a rushed and underspecced product, they are trying to price it along others that do provide everything else their own product lacks.
It's a free market though, so people will ultimately vote with their wallets.
I personally don't forsee many pros favoring the C300 over the F3 for all the lacking features stated above (but that is just me).

[Chris Hurd]

From the "I have a feeling" department: I have a feeling it will sell for less than $20,000. The real question is how much less.

[Peer Landa]

Chris, perhaps you also have a "feeling" if the street price of for the 1Dx will be much less than the prospected $6,800 tag? The more I read about it, the more I want one, (and yes, I also do photography).

-- peer

[James Huenergardt]

It better be a LOT less.

For 1080P video, $20K is a bit much, don't you thnk?

[Chris Hurd]

@Peer: I, too, would very much like to have a 1DX, but I can't justify the $6,800 price.
Unfortunately when Canon 1-series bodies are concerned, they tend to sell right at full
MSRP for at least a full year after their release, then they go down by $1,000 or so.

@James: Actually for 1080p video, I think $60,000 is a bit much -- and yet that's what
the Arri Alexa costs (roughly), and it's one of the hottest cameras in Hollywood right now.

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

@Peer: I, too, would very much like to have a 1DX, but I can't justify the $6,800 price.
Unfortunately when Canon 1-series bodies are concerned, they tend to sell right at full
MSRP for at least a full year after their release, then they go down by $1,000 or so.

@James: Actually for 1080p video, I think $60,000 is a bit much -- and yet that's what
the Arri Alexa costs (roughly), and it's one of the hottest cameras in Hollywood right now.

The Alexa is a LOT more than just '1080p'. Here are its specs:
1) 2880x1620 pixels
2) records 12bit Pro Res 444 1080p to SxS or 2880x1620 Arri Raw 12bit to Codex onboard recorder
3) 60fps Arriraw or PR 444 and 120fps to PR 422

I think "8bit, 1080p, 9 stops for 20k" would be more appropriate. Also, the F23 and F35 are 1080p and cost way more than any of these cameras but are still used in episodic and features. Too many people think '4k' is an absolute necessity, but its not. For a lot of work, it is a hassle. For editing, you can either waste a ton of time exporting to Pro Res for FCP, offline to online, etc or buy some Rockets to edit in 4k in other NLEs and programs. I think the Alexa proves that 4k is not needed.

[Bruce Schultz]

Originally Posted by Steve Kalle

The Alexa is a LOT more than just '1080p'. . I think the Alexa proves that 4k is not needed.

I watched a special screening of Martin Scorsese's "Hugo" today in 3D shot with Alexa cameras and I'll second and third the above notion.

As another point, people forget that Avatar is also a 1080P movie, but shot on Sony 1080P cameras. Lots of Red 4K originated movies can be listed, but after you de-bayer Red footage in post, that 4K gets knocked down to under 3K - or less.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Henry Coll

-The F3 has Dual-Link, the C300 doesn't
-The F3 has LUTs, the C300 doesn't
-The F3 spits out 10 bit, the C300 just 8 bit
-The F3 outputs 444, the C300 just 422
-The F3 does 1080@60p, the C300 only 30p
-The F3 has simultaneous SDIs with different LUTs applied (Outs+recording+monitoring), the Canon has just a simple SDI plus a consumer HDMI

.

A number of those are options on the F3, the camera as you buy it doesn't have those, you have to buy them as extras. Many (if not most) F3s won't use these extras and this is the particular market would be the one that the C300 is addressing.

Canon has pointed out there is a paint box in the C300 menus and having an extensive menu as found on the high end broadcast cameras like the F900 series or the SDX 900 give a wide range of options that I don't think you can find in the F3. If you look in the manual for an F900 there are pages of menus for adjusting the camera's set and knowing their way around these is the job of the DIT.

It's a bit unfashionable now, but you could download a range of great looks for your SDX900 and you'd have it there and then on the set. You can also protect your highlights by how you set your knee and your clipping level. All this was done inside the camera before it was recorded at 8 bits, so those banding issues aren't there when you're doing this. However, not having seen the C300's paint box menus I don't know how extensive it is in practise.

I suspect the street price will drop, I haven't seen anywhere selling cameras at the manufacturer's price for a while. At the very least it needs to be competitive with a F3 fitted with an external recorder, which it isn't at the present quoted price. Ideally around same price as the basic F3.

Looking at the specs, the C300 is mostly aimed at television production, perhaps as a B camera, but for certain types of TV drama it could works as the A camera. You could shoot a low budget feature film on it, although if you would may be open to question. It would depend on the nature of the project and if you'd consider the Scarlet or the F3.

If compact size is important on the feature the choice could come down to the Scarlet or the C300. If you're shooting in a difficult environment with poor communications and limited power you may start favouring the C300. The cost of CF means that you could consider regarding them as the masters without downloading them for reuse during the shoot.

[Paul Curtis]

Having watched some of the behind the scenes stuff i think there's a few more points in favour to canon.

The wifi/ipad connection seems really useful. Remote control of focus/settings wirelessly i hadn't seen mentioned anywhere. I can see that being very useful on set, especially with cameras rigged in unusual positions. I don't know whether the set up is good enough for a directors viewfinder but the potential is there.

Ergonomically it seems pretty good too, things in the right places although it is a different form factor than usual video cameras.

The quality of that 1080p seems better than the F3. Until we can see side by side it's difficult to be quantative about it but the F3 does still suffer moire and colour aliasing.

I do think that it's more expensive than it should be, if it was sub $10k then i think they would sell a lot more. But it's a pretty nice all in one just-go-out-and-shoot camera.

cheers
paul

[Jon Fairhurst]

Doctor: I have good news and bad news.
Patient: Give me the bad news.
Doctor: You have less than a week to live.
Patient: Geez! So what's the good news?
Doctor: Did you see the beautiful receptionist on the way in?
Patient: Yeah...
Doctor: She agreed to sleep with me.

Ba dump.

That's a swapped point of view joke.

The "historic announcement" wasn't historic for us (the patients). It was historic for Canon (the doctor).

Not that I mean to be dissing Canon here. It's as much our fault if we thought that the announcement would be historic for us ("It's all about me!") as it is Canon's fault for raising expectations. People in general tend to take a self-centered view of things. One could make a film with that premise...

[Don Parrish]

Chris, any indication as to the future of shoulder mounts for Canon ? There also seems to a gap left by the XF line. What is the future of the non cinema cameras ??

[Thierry Humeau]

Originally Posted by Henry Coll

Canon really rushed the C300

I personally don't forsee many pros favoring the C300 over the F3 for all the lacking features stated above (but that is just me).

Henry,

The C300 may be lacking some of the high-end features that are available to the F3 but it comes with some kind of LOG implementation and a slew of unique features. It may not be an attractive choice for film guys who need 4K output but I think the C300 offer a very compelling package for TV and Doco production. It sure does not record 4K but having an almost 4K sensor resolution can't hurt, even if your output is 1080. In carefully analyzing the hires pics (from the press kit) and the specs sheet, I think the C300 is actually a very well built and unique camera. As a TV pro, I think the EF version and the tight integration with Canon's lenses offering is going to be a tremendous asset. I also like the form factor, 422 50mbps, EVF quality, balance, power draw, etc... I feel this cam will work quite better than an F3 for TV and Doco work, and I own 2 F3s so, this is an unbiased opinion.

Thierry.

[Don Miller]

If we had all the current info except price, what would we guess is the price of the C300? I would guess it's a FS100 competitor and put it at $7500, assuming it has superior sensor technology. Also the XF305 is about that price, and this camera is likely less expensive to manufacturer (without knowing how to apply development costs to projected sales of each product).
But on paper we (well, me at least) wouldn't expect the Alexa to be so pricey.
The C300's image may be closer to Alexa than the F3. We just don't know. The non bayer nature of the new sensor is important. It looks a lot more advanced than the apparently more standard CMOS on the cameras competitors.
But I can't say that advantage shows on Laforet's 1080p Vimeo video.
I look at the quality and technology of the XF300 series and I'm disappointed in the price of the C300. I think perhaps the House shoot on the 5D led to this Hollywood thing and the C300 market position.
What do they plan for the C100, anyways? 720p? Maybe take it down to 6 bit? Hand crank?