C300 Discussion

[Mark David Williams]

DAVID

Eastenders is a soap that runs four times a week and needs to be delivered quickly. Eastenders has been broadcast live and looked the same as always so grading must be done in camera Not much time for grading anyhow and probably the look set up in camera or at a controlled stage with camera setups and cameras that live on sets. With lights that stay the same on those sets.Except externals and outside broadcasts. Do they use 8 bits then?

8 bit undoubtably has advantages when it comes to eastenders built sets .

Are you saying the 4K sensor will down convert a better picture than the 1080p My thoughts were this was only an advantage in the on board S log.

I don't need 10 bit recording because it will come at a cost????

WOW

[Mark David Williams]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I'm not really narrowing the F3, although it does narrow the market of the C300.

Well you are if you tie the Nanoflash with the F3 as the nanoflash which is only 8 bit and you know the F3 can be partnered with the Gemini However the Canon cant.

If you had $5m you're unlikely to be shooting either of these cameras, unless they're giving you something that an Epic, Alexa or a 35mm film camera won't. You pick the tool for the job and if say the C300 or F3 enables something that's going to improve how the story that's the one you you'll use. "28 days Later" was shot with a Canon XL-1S, even though budget would have allowed for 35mm film. They wanted a lack of detail as part of the look .

But also no one at any budget could logically justify using the Canon with its 8 bit post workflow when they could use the Sony F3 with S log at 10 bit.

Grading in camera for all your setups and locations is just too risky and doesn't give you any room to change your mind in post or to improve on mistakes or to use all the great tools avialbale to a colourist.

8 bit or 10 bit is one part of the decision process. The F3 and C300 are very different cameras, so you'll be looking at a number of aspects. One is more compact for a start.

Yes but it wont be very compact by the time you add a set of rails matte box hook up peripheral monitors and alll and any othre attachments you have. Looking at some of the demo films the camera sometimes fully loaded looked more like a bazooka.

Anyway that aside If someone wants to make a cinematic film with actors with a small camera to be incognito or to put it somewhere that is only a small space or where a light weight is essential Maybe remote control it from a few hydrogen balloons I dont know. then they must expect that grading could be a problem.

[Brian Drysdale]

You can make a camera bigger but you can't make smaller. If size is an important consideration for a production this becomes a factor in the selection. If you're shooting a film in the jungle with very little power, the needs are different to being in the middle of a city.

The F3 dual link costs approx $3.700 from one dealer, then you need to add the recorder. How all this compares with the final street price of the C300 remains to be seen. Quite possibly Canon may come out with a camera that gives a similar spec for post work, but it isn't the C300.

There are always a number of considerations when selecting a camera for a film, what works for one doesn't always work for another. Applying a look in the camera isn't that risky, you just need to know what you want. It's been done for a number of pretty large feature films in the past.

In the end it just comes down to your budget and what you need to tell the story, 8 bit or 10 bit is just one part of the equation.

[Mark David Williams]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

If size is an important consideration for a production this becomes a factor in the selection. If you're shooting a film in the jungle with very little power, the needs are different to being in the middle of a city.

If you take a cast and crew out to the jungle you will be taking a lot of equipment and what you need. I really wouldn't buy a camera because I'd be afraid of runiing out of power. I'd buy more batteries.

The F3 dual link costs approx $3.700 from one dealer, then you need to add the recorder. How all this compares with the final street price of the C300 remains to be seen.

If you're buying this sort of kit to make a film with you will want to do your grading in post in ten bits. If you just use the F3 with S log you will be safe Wheras if you colour correct in camera and make mistakes you might have wasted the shoot. Who would take that risk?

Quite possibly Canon may come out with a camera that gives a similar spec for post work, but it isn't the C300.

I imagine that Canon have something just around the corner with full 10 bit workflow. Seriously they wouldn't make a $20,0000 camera with 8 bit out without there being a sound marketing strategy behind it. My guess is they wil want top dollar for a new camera that will be king. By putting ten bits out on the C300 it would be shooting itself in the foot and the C300 would be king of the hill.

There are always a number of considerations when selecting a camera for a film, what works for one doesn't always work for another.

Yes thats true Unfortunatly though the Canon doesn't have ten bit out and it's a camera designed for grading how daft is that?

Applying a look in the camera isn't that risky, you just need to know what you want. It's been done for a number of pretty large feature films in the past.

Yes in the ten bit world so they could undo any damage.

In the end it just comes down to your budget and what you need to tell the story, 8 bit or 10 bit is just one part of the equation.

No it's not one part its a massive part in a camera designed for grading. Its only explanation is so it doesnt tread on the feet of something bigger and better and is a protective strategy. They may very well have shot themselves in the foot with this as it's a camera that Indie film makers want but cant afford and a camera that professionals wont want but can afford in my opinion.

Who knows if it is a strategy maybe its some kind of natural justice. Unless (which may be the case) people just buy into the absolutely gorgeous pictures and forget the rest. People have a tnednecy to have blinkered vision and sometimes just fall hook line and sinker. I certainly wouldn't want to miss inform or glam up something I didn't really believe. I feel compassion for those spending money on this sort of equipment that they don't have and getting something they didnt expect Because thats what we film makers do We will do our utmost to improve our lot even if it means selling posessions and taking loans we can ill afford.. However out there in some blogs and people who would help them out of every penny and call it business.

[Brian Drysdale]

More batteries aren't much use if you can't recharge them fast enough because you don't have access to enough power.

You can colour correct 8 bit 4:2;2 enough in the camera to get it close enough for the final fine adjustment. I know because I've seen people completely screw a grade on DVCAM and there was wide range of maladjustment, while the video the the two cameras on the set perfectly matched up We could switch between the cameras on the set they were the same.

I think you should test the camera and see if there any issues with that you don't want, otherwise you don't really know in practise what the C300's limits are.

[Mark David Williams]

Brian
So do you see 8 bit as acceptable for professional post work that includes grading?

[Brian Drysdale]

Yes, but just don't push your luck and keep things under control at the shooting stage. A good DP will pin things so you don't need a wide range of adjustments in post, just finessing. Gordon Willis used to expose film so that the studio couldn't change things during the grade.

Again this comes down to your budget, not having 10 bit isn't an excuse for not making a film, there are now range of options for shooting lower budget films. You can do camera tests to work out your limits with a particular camera, it's the same as a DP does with film stock. I know of people having problems grading with a RED because they didn't make allowance for it's weaknesses and it's 12 bit.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Eastenders is a soap that runs four times a week and needs to be delivered quickly......grading must be done in camera Not much time for grading anyhow.........

Yes, all true..... and true for many, many other productions. Which is really the point. If 8 bit is good enough for Eastenders (which for people not in the UK, gets some of the highest audiences in the country) surely it's not a problem for a lot of other people either? People who are exactly who this camera is targeted at?

.......Except externals and outside broadcasts. Do they use 8 bits then?

Read the quote from the article. "the combination of the HSC-300 and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders were selected. The XDCAM’s were for location work .....
Read the full article and you'll see they use switched cameras for the regular sets, recorded direct to server via Avid DNxHD at 120Mbps (which I believe is 8 bit?), and PDW-700 XDCAM HD422 camcorders for location work. Effectively the same codec as the Canon C300, and yes, 8 bit. For location drama.

If it's good enough for the BBC to use when they migrate one of their most watched drama programmes to HD, don't you think that's a pretty good recommendation? Do you have any complaints about the technical quality of Eastenders?

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Are you saying the 4K sensor will down convert a better picture than the 1080p My thoughts were this was only an advantage in the on board S log.

Originally Posted by Steve Kimmel

I'm curious about the postulate that the C300 sensor will be better than the F3. Is this based on what people have seen? on the technology of the C300 sensor? other stuff?

Purely theoretical - I did say "I strongly suspect that tests will show the C300 sensor is better than the F3 - we'll see"

Reasoning. The F3 has a Bayer sensor whose active dimensions are about 2456x1372 (3.36MP effective). After deBayering this will give a R,G,B raster of the same size, but with a resolution somewhat less. The 2456x1372 will then need to be downconverted in real time to 1920x1080. The deBayering and downconversion will take quite a lot of processing - and downconversion is not an easy thing to do well.

The C300 sensor may best be thought of as a 1920x1080 matrix of Bayer blocks, each of the form

G R
B G

And what the C300 does is read out the photosites individually - so directly gets an R,G,B value for each block. Simple - no deBayer processing. And each frame it directly gets 1920x1080 RGB samples. Simple - no downconversion!

How they will compare can really only be determined by measurement, but let's just say the Canon sensor is starting from a far easier place. The larger differences may turn out to be more practical than "quality" - simple processing frequently means lower power (hence heat).

[Mark David Williams]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Yes, but just don't push your luck and keep things under control at the shooting stage. A good DP will pin things so you don't need a wide range of adjustments in post, just finessing. Gordon Willis used to expose film so that the studio couldn't change things during the grade.

Again this comes down to your budget, not having 10 bit isn't an excuse for not making a film, there are now range of options for shooting lower budget films. You can do camera tests to work out your limits with a particular camera, it's the same as a DP does with film stock. I know of people having problems grading with a RED because they didn't make allowance for it's weaknesses and it's 12 bit.

So can I ask what made you change your mind since this?
HDCAM or DVCPRO-HD - Cinematography.com

[Mark David Williams]

DAVID

Look no one is disputing the Canon couldn't be used for professional broadcast it could.

So lets split this into two parts.

NON GRADING
But why would you? There are other cameras out there like the Sony F3 that can do it cheaper and give you S log out if you did want to grade in post. If you don't need a large sensor there are even cheaper options.

GRADING
You wouldn't use the Canon for professional grading because it's only 8 bit out..

Fair enough?

[Steve Kalle]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Brian
So do you see 8 bit as acceptable for professional post work that includes grading?

Yes, I certainly do because I have actual experience grading 8bit footage from cameras including EX3's internal 35Mb 420, EX3 to nanoFlash at 280Mb/s 422, Red One down converted to 720p at 8bits as well as 3D renders to 8bit PSD (after hours of rendering and testing, I now use 8bit PSD for 90% of my 3D renders). I also have experience with vfx and compositing elements into an 8bit plate. The reason I can get good results with an 8bit image is due to Floating Point 32bits per channel. I already stated that all Pro grading apps such as Resolve and most Pro vfx software and NLE's can edit in 32bpc. Personally, I use After Effects CS5 for my grading (and soon will be Resolve when released on Windows in a couple months). When I need to push an image, I work in 32bpc mode within AE. When I edit with Premiere, I always check the box to render in 32bpc mode, and I have never had a problem.

This isn't to say that I completely disagree with the complaints about no 10bit output. On a $20,000 camera in 2011 designed for high-end work, there is absolutely NO excuse. If Sony can put a 10bit HD-SDI output on their $4,000 cameras, then why did Canon put an 8bit output on their $20k camera?

Furthermore, I don't understand people's comments about 'grading' in-camera. If you saw what a colorist does in Resolve, you would understand that its impossible to 'grade' in-camera. I think a more accurate term would be "color correcting" in-camera. A common adjustment in grading is to key a face, add blue to highlights and green to shadows while keeping faces a natural color - this is impossible to do with any camera.

I also do not understand why Canon made a $20k camera with ONLY 9 stops of DR using standard gammas. The F3 has 11-11.5 stops with standard & cine gammas.

If the C300:
1) had 10bit out,
2) sold for $10k,
3) had a better design for adding accessories on top like the F3 and a cheese plate on top,
4) one body with both PL and EF mounts like the F3 with its F mount and PL adapter,
It would be a killer camera when using its C-Log and recording 10bit Pro Res HQ to a PIX240.

[Steve Kalle]

I forgot to add this: the C300 has more noise than the F3 but Canon's history of noise reduction should mean that the noise looks more like film grain. With an 8bit image and large amounts of gradations, this grain is actually beneficial because it will dither and help prevent banding.

[Mark David Williams]

DAVID

Okay now we're talking about the 4k sensor and possible benefits from being an easy fit in down conversion and so is speculation.

So normally then the debayering compromises the image. If true how much is resolution and colour compromised or does some sort of algorithym put it together in an undetectable way which in practice will mean the Canon will make no discernable difference whatsoever unless put under a microscope?

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

So normally then the debayering compromises the image. If true how much is resolution and colour compromised or does some sort of algorithym put it together in an undetectable way which in practice will mean the Canon will make no discernable difference whatsoever unless put under a microscope?

Does this help? Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (DeBayering and demosaicing mean more or less the same thing.)

As far as "how much is resolution and colour compromised?" then it's a highly complicated subject with no pat answers, just approximations. But as a rule of thumb, if a Bayer sensor was 1000x1000, then deBayering may give approximately luminance resolution of about 800x800, chrominance res of about 500x500. Very approximately.

Hence the reasoning for the F3 sensor to be larger than 1920x1080 - 2456x1372 in this case.

But there's a limit to what the numbers can tell you. Downconverters range from very good to abysmal, and the effects can't be expressed in simple numbers. But generally, if you can avoid a downconversion - avoid it!

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

So normally then the debayering compromises the image.

In the case of the Canon C300, the sensor has a standard Bayer-pattern but it is not a standard de-Bayering readout.