C300 Discussion

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Hmm seems like this just the beginning of something really REALLY BIG That still maintains Pro and consumer markets and gives the competition a damn good hiding.

My guess is that we're reaching technological maturity in CMOS imaging, as has happened with still photography. Some commoditization of the base capture technology allowed Red to go out and purchase what they needed.

I think the future is superb images from increasingly cheaper devices. There's only so much information in the image circle of a lens. That fact plus the limitations of physics suggest that this isn't an endless cycle of IQ improvement.

An entry level DSLR takes an essentially indistinguishable still image from the top pro model. The IQ difference between brands is very small too. This is happening in video.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Henry Coll

As Larry Thorpe has said, Canon has essentially put a brand new S35 sensor into the XF300 so they could release a product in just 2 years.

That's why I'm confused about the price. The C300 looks to be around $10K more than an XF300... and in addition the XF300 includes a fairly good lens.

No way can the sensor cost that much to manufacture. Of course R&D is expensive but if I was Canon I would aim to recoupe this with volume of sales rather than high mark up. That would also immediately give them a much higher market share = more control of the market. With no higher end cameras to protect, this camera shouted sub $10K to me with a big brother (4K, dual link HDSDI or RAW) coming in at $20K and a little sister (EOS mount only, no Genlock, maybe HDMI only...yuck!) at $5K. All could share the same sensor but would still carve their own niche. To me it seems a far better strategy.

...And one more thing, can someone please explain the logic to that STUPID EVF position? Notice that in the BTS videos no one is using it. A movie camera VF needs to be movable...but of course, stills shooters who designed the camera may not realize that.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Henry Coll

You can of course do this with a vey expensive Cinetal monitor with 3DLUTs, but that one is for the DIT guy. Also, let's not forget the 1AC (focus puller) also needs a separarate monitor with a 709 LUT for focussing (unless he's an old school guy who works by feet reference).
.

Any focus pullers (1st AC) I know use tape measurements for pulling focus, although the tape may be a Laser rather than a length of cloth. They tend to use the monitor for quick checks on the framing etc, the on board camera monitors tends to be too small for accurate focus judgements. You also tend to be slightly behind the action using the monitor.

The AC will eye focus if the marks on the lens aren't really satisfactory, but they usually put focus marks on the lens or follow focus, rather than use the monitor during the shot. Although, some will do a quick confidence check at the monitor during the take, they're not using it for actual the focus pull.

The TV camera operators do use the V/F monitor on studio cameras for focus, but they also tend to be 2.3" cameras.

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

...And one more thing, can someone please explain the logic to that STUPID EVF position? Notice that in the BTS videos no one is using it. A movie camera VF needs to be movable...but of course, stills shooters who designed the camera may not realize that.

If you watch the behind the scenes for "Max is Back", you'll see it in use for their handheld setup. This was the rig I played with at the Canon event. I'm a vocal proponent of articulating viewfinders (I stayed far away from the loupe-on-the-viewfinder mode of DSLR shooting, always using an external monitor) but this wasn't all that bad to work with, although obviously it will only work with the camera in a relatively similar orientation to your body (if you need to drop the camera to chest height or on a sandbag etc, you are out of luck). The viewfinder is surprisingly high-res.

Clearly the camera is designed to have an outboard third party viewfinder, but one wonders why Canon didn't just make the built-in one movable instead, with a dedicated viewfinder port cable.

[Ronald Jackson]

No so sure if this "off topic" but is there an opinion out there, an informed one hopefully, about whether Canon will be bringing out a new shoulder mount/interchangeable lens version of the XF300/5?

The BBC I understand are happy enough with the XF305s and their 50Mbps codec to have purchased 50 of them.

Not that they will be used for TV drama but rather "run and gun" situations where there is still a demand for portable 3 chipper cameras.

My own interest is wildlife filming, strictly amateur, but I have seen a EX3 with a Nanoflash being used on a BBC Wildlife programme. Given the Beeb are using 305s without a Nanoflash there could therefore be situations where an interchangeable lens version would "go".

Assuming that such a camera would have a sub $10K price tag (with a "standard" lens?) then it would tap into the "prosumer" market where there are more and more wildlife film makers, many of them stuck with using DSLRs.

Canon must know that the main purchasers of their big EF 500/600mm lenses , after perhaps pro sports photographers, are wildlife photographers, most of whom seem to be "prosumers" if not rank amateurs, at least here in the UK. Persuade these that the future "moves" but not ideally via a single chip narrow depth of field DSLR then the market opens up even more.

Ron

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect the Xf 305 are being used as replacements for the Z1, which isn't accepted as HD by the BBC, so they'll be used on productions in the same manner.

The EX series is popular with the Nanoflash because of the low cost, if Canon were going for an on shoulder design, it would make sense for it to be a 1/2" or 2/3" design with interchangeable lenses. The XF 305 lens has correction software built into the camera, so it's somewhat different to an interchangeable 1/3" camera using different lenses.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

...The viewfinder is surprisingly high-res.

Clearly the camera is designed to have an outboard third party viewfinder, but one wonders why Canon didn't just make the built-in one movable instead, with a dedicated viewfinder port cable.

Thanks Charles.

I agree as far as the camera will NEED an outboard VF but not that it is DESIGNED to have one. In fact it appears to be designed without really considering the VF. If it was designed to have an outboard VF, it should have a VF port or at least a second HDSDI port. As far as I'm aware it has neither.

Now I'm all for having a quality VF included (like on the EX3 and PMW350) but why go to the trouble of including an EVF only to then lock it in an inflexible position. It screams of a designer who is not a user.

These are really simple things to get right and this lack of attention to (major) detail annoys me on what claims to be a high end professional tool.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

why go to the trouble of including an EVF only to then lock it in an inflexible position.

To be fair, it is not inflexible. It can be rotated on the vertical axis up to 60 degrees.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

...I stayed far away from the loupe-on-the-viewfinder mode of DSLR shooting, always using an external monitor...

I would too, if I owned your steadicam rig. ;) (Did you really sell it?)

The loupe solution is pretty effective for a shoulder rig setup for those of us with aging eyeballs. But I never use the loupe on a tripod, jib, dolly. I either use the onboard LCD when doing things quickly or an LCD monitor when I have more time.

Of course, a side EVF is best for shoulder work. It gives better balance and retains the close focus advantages of a loupe. But the loupe is about ten times as cost effective...

[Thierry Humeau]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

To be fair, it is not inflexible. It can be rotated on the vertical axis up to 60 degrees.

And I am told it is of very good quality too. I actually like the compactness of its design. The C300 accessories kit also include a nice eye cup for the EVF.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

To be fair, it is not inflexible. It can be rotated on the vertical axis up to 60 degrees.

But the position is inflexible. My gripe is that it is placed too far back and can't be moved. In order to use it the entire camera and lens has to sit directly in front or below your face. Therefore shoulder mounting more or less dictates buying an additional VF. This adds to costs and will never be as convenient as a dedicated design.

Come on guys, do you actually think this design, particularly the VF is optimal? If not the only way they'll know is if we raise the issue.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I suspect the Xf 305 are being used as replacements for the Z1, which isn't accepted as HD by the BBC, so they'll be used on productions in the same manner.

I understand the BBC basically bought the Z1s as SD cameras - they were bought to give true SD 16:9. At the time of purchase, general HD broadcasting seemed a long way off. Expensive programmes (Planet Earth, big dramas) were being made in HD - but not run of the mill stuff.

Apart from getting old, one motive for replacement must have been to get an equivalent type of camera - but HD. Hence the XF305, which ticks all the boxes. Worth noting that they have also bought a lot of PMW500s - also using the 50Mbs XDCAM422. And there was a report in TVBEurope not long ago that when "Eastenders" went HD they were using the PDW700 camera for location work. Yes, XDCAM422 again.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Henry Coll

Take the best source you can think of, for instance 35mm film scanned with an ARRISCAN at 4k.

Now compress it to 50Mbps MPEG-2 4:2:2, and to 1,200Mbps uncompressed 10 bit RGB 4:4:4.
Now decide which looks better.......

I doubt you'll see a huge amount of difference..... (The EBU trials did describe XDCAM422 as "quasi-transparent".)

........and gives you more room in Post.

Ah! now that's a different matter...... And isn't this really what everybody is saying? Just that some are seeing a half full pot, others one half empty?

Canons use of this codec is great - if you don't want to change "the look" too much from that fixed at time of shooting. And for a great deal of work - and broadcast work, not low budget - that will be the case. High quality, easy to work with, and for current broadcast, who needs better than 1080p? It'll be a long time before it can be broadcast, and it's not so long ago since many were saying that 720p was good enough - why even go to 1080? I didn't agree with that, but even with larger screens in the home 1080 is probably as much as the human eye can take in.

Originally Posted by Don Miller

My guess is that we're reaching technological maturity in CMOS imaging, as has happened with still photography............

An entry level DSLR takes an essentially indistinguishable still image from the top pro model. The IQ difference between brands is very small too. This is happening in video.

There's a lot of truth in that. In the end, there's not a lot of point in getting much better than the human eye can distinguish.

Where there still is a little way to go is making a camera that shoots both high quality video, and high quality stills. At the moment there's quite a gulf between sensors optimised for still or video.

What I prophesy will really end that is a sensor of dimensions 7680x4320 (4x 1920x1080 in each direction), or about 32 megapixel. Reasoning is that it's more than enough for stills, but using the same principle that Canon are using for the C300 it can be very easily directly read for 4k or 1080. (For 4k, exactly how Canon are currently doing with the C300, but scaled up - direct read of 2x2 blocks - and for 1080 just read 4x4 blocks instead.)

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

Therefore shoulder mounting more or less dictates buying an additional VF.

Well, that's a given... see pics below (click to embiggen).

On the Zacuto shoulder support rig, they should have left
the top handle off... not sure why it's on there.

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

This adds to costs and will never be as convenient as a dedicated design.

They're placing a greater emphasis on modularity and compactness.

At this level -- $16k to $20k or whatever it is, the cost of a third-party
EVF component like this Zacuto piece is insignificant. Budgets for the
camera dept. should *always* include a good degree of latitude to cover
extra gear like this... nothing new here.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

They're placing a greater emphasis on modularity and compactness.

But Chris, if it was properly modular why is there no VF port (or at least 2nd HDSDI output)? I don't think HDMI is suitable for pro work and know many who would agree.

At this price I would expect a proper VF solution designed as an integral part of the camera. I would not expect to have to daisy chain HDSDI cables or worse still HDMI cables into a 3rd party solution. I really don't think I'm being unreasonable here - I spend a lot of my time with my eye against a VF and it is absolutely critical to achieving decent footage. You are arguing that it should be taken as "a given" that a camera needs two VFs?

Originally Posted by Chris Hurd

... nothing new here.

Eh? Apart from the equally badly designed F3, name me a recent professional level camera that isn't designed to provide a viewfinder positioned to shoot from the shoulder? (Obviously within a acceptable weight limit).

Your argument that the camera is so expensive that the extra cost is irrelevant appears totally backward to me. Sure, on a cheap DSLR where video is an ancillary function I expect compromise. On a professional cinema camera I expect the design of essentials like the viewfinder to be integral and not rely on 3rd party bolt-ons.

The issue is that the design clearly stems from an SLR form factor not a film/video camera form factor. I see no ergonomic reason for this however I can see HOW it happened - the R&D was led "by a member of Canon USA’s still photography EOS team."

In my opinion that was an error and has led to a number of design flaws.