C300 Discussion

[David Heath]

I don't know if I'm allowed to mention names, but a large UK dealer is advertising the C300 without lens for about £12,500 (excl VAT). Equivalent F3 pricing is just below £10,000 from the same dealer.

Base F3 pricing in the US seems to be about $14,000 - *IF* the same differential applies, that predicts the US price of the C300 to be about $17,500.......?

[Simon Wood]

German website has it listed at €12,000.

[Brian Drysdale]

From those figures Canon seem to be pricing the C300 to match up against a F3 fitted out with a Nanoflash. Of course, those are the product release selling prices and how much you could negotiate a price from a dealer or what it will be in six months time is another matter.

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Jim Martin

Not to bring it up again, but I had a fun conversation with Dana Christiaanson at the Canon Hollywood Service Center on Thursday night. We were there for the showing of "XXIT" followed by Q & A with Dana and Jung Ahn, Sr Pro Tech rep from Canon.

I thought XXIT was a good demo for the camera. The low light scenes looked great. The highlights seemed somewhat blown in the final daylight scene, however.

With the Laforet short I was distracted by the color cast, and trying to figure out if he was shooting near mid day. I guess for a camera demo I prefer hot women, in a city at night, with a good sound track. Hopefully the gangsta short phase is just a phase.

I'm looking forward to a comparison of low light shots between the F3 and the C300. We know the F3 is clean but how does the detail and texture compare?

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

I'm not totally convinced that it'll have the level of impact that they're mentioning. With multipliable cameras those daily set up figures are already manageable and 3 day shoots aren't unusual on shorts. The factors that add to production times tends to be things other than the camera and the comments about large crews etc sound rather similar to those made during the early 1970s.

The primary advantage of faster cameras is the ability to use lower power lighting units when a scene has to be lit from scratch, or less of them when there is existing lighting within a scene. To clarify, lower power doesn't mean smaller, because a smaller source delivers a different look than a larger one. For those with limited access to lighting and lighting control, it does mean that one can shoot a scene under practical or ambient lighting if necessary. But the "you don't need lights any more" argument has always been a question mitigated by the answer: how do you want it to look? If the existing or ambient lighting has the right look for the results you want, then great, it will work and setup time can indeed be reduced. If more stylization is required, then the only real advantage is that you can save on power requirements.

After weeks of shooting with the F3/S-log, I was bemoaning the fact that I rarely got to see what that fast sensor could do, as I was always having to build the ambience from scratch. We shot a big night exterior on a backlot and had it been a real city environment I could have boosted the gain and then lit the foreground accordingly; instead I had to create ambient lighting in all directions. Certainly I was able to create a more interesting background, but on that night we had to drop a shot and I know I could have avoided it with the other scenario. Finally in our last week I got to stretch the camera's low light capability when we shot a conversation in a moving car at night, on a process trailer. Normally I would have to incorporate various lighting gags around the perimeter of the trailer to recreate the ambient lighting effects, but this time I just gave a soft front fill that dimmed up and down slightly, set the cameras at 12db of gain at T2.8 (minimum aperture on the zooms) and away we went. The rear window had tint so it was still a tad dark back there but you could see plenty of detail and highlight. The streetlights and storefronts cast a very realistic and dynamic amount of light across the windshield and into the actor's faces. The result appeared very "unlit" and natural. At the end of the night we pulled the cameras off the trailer and did a couple of drivebys on a badly lit section of street. The images were pretty amazing, being brighter than the eye, although the headlights did cause a vertical smear (even the hero car with ND6 on the headlights). However it would have looked a lot better if we could have picked a location with a more balanced amount of ambient light, and less gain boost.

The notion of shooting with just practicals is not bad in theory, but it does come with a price. Any light fixture in the frame that is going to provide enough illumination to light a face is also going to read very hot to camera. That's OK if that's a choice, but if one wants to present a dark room, having a table lamp that is throwing blowout-level intensity onto the wall behind or the table below may not be conducive to that look. Even with the low light capabilities, I still find myself dimming down practicals so that they read appropriately to camera, then recreating their effect with other units.

In "XXIT", when Nicolette Sheridan is wandering the streets of the city, I noticed some very hot background elements such as a completely blown out storefront directly behind her. I found that distracting. While it is amazing to be able to shoot under lower light than ever before, the "found" aesthetic (that will no doubt become a trend just like shallow focus before it) is right for some projects and not for others. Balancing light levels, whether high or low, is part of the cinematographer's job. One of the reasons that I embraced the 1DMKIV over the other Canons for the past two years was the ability to crank it up and shoot my interiors at 1250 and night work at 2500 ISO (once or twice at 5000), but I saw those as added options for the toolkit, not a reason to control the lighting any less.

[Henry Coll]

Charles,
I agree 100% on what you wrote. Lighting is what differentiates amateur from professional work, NOT the camera used.

Those thinking a more sensitive camera will take away the necessity of lighting and all the grip vans, can only come from the ENG world. For anything scripted, on the other hand, lighting (and negative lighting) is essential. Whatever stock speed you have, you still have to fight the sun outdoors or indoors with window light. Shooting at night or in closed indoors with a more sensitive camera will require as well the same amount of lights and grip trees, the only difference is the overall amount of wattage will be lower.

I have to say I've been VERY unimpressed with all C300 shorts, as they've abused available light/practicals and therefore the final result ended up being pretty rubbish, compared to professional standards. If I was producing a commercial and got such resuts, I'd just fire the DP or Director, or both. I guess it'd be ok for an indie movie though.

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't think using lighting resources in these cases really matters, it's more interesting at this stage to see how the camera performs when pushed than when something has an investment in lighting to make it look really good. When people run camera tests they're going to push the camera until the image completely falls apart, so seeing how well it handles difficult situations is a worthwhile exercise for the launch.

DPs are going to make selection decisions on their own tests anyway.

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

DPs are going to make selection decisions on their own tests anyway.

Well, I know I am. But I see a lot of people on this and other message boards who have made up their mind based on the clips, on the specs, on the price point, on the hype, on brand loyalty, etc etc. How many have already said "I'm going to buy a Scarlet, it's clearly the winner" without ever having seen one in person, let alone comprehensive clips?

Obviously the C300, the F3 and Scarlet are going to be all capable of producing great pictures. So it's essentially a win-win for all.

[Brian Drysdale]

Since I've only seen the films on line, I wouldn't make any judgements given the effects of compression etc on what you're seeing. I know people do like to see clips on their computer, but until you get the rushes straight off the camera and you've got a correctly set up large monitor you don't always know what you've got.

I guess it would be useful if they did supply the ISO. There were comments on the noise on one film, but seemingly it was 12,000 ISO or something pretty extreme. That's really why you should your own tests, perhaps even more so if the C300 has a comprehensive paint box menu on board.

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

How many have already said "I'm going to buy a Scarlet, it's clearly the winner" without ever having seen one in person, let alone comprehensive clips?

My understanding was that Epic output = Scarlet output, and therefore existing, readily available Epic clips = what Scarlet can do (minus the obvious differences in frame rate, 5k video, window size vs. res, etc.).

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I don't know if I'm allowed to mention names, but a large UK dealer is advertising the C300 without lens for about £12,500 (excl VAT). Equivalent F3 pricing is just below £10,000 from the same dealer.

Base F3 pricing in the US seems to be about $14,000 - *IF* the same differential applies, that predicts the US price of the C300 to be about $17,500.......?

At this occasion, a European short filmed in France was screened as well as the previous films. You could also play with the camera set ups using DSC charts and try some grading with a Quantel Pablo using some of the rushes. Apparently the images "didn't fall apart" when pushed around by one fussy DP.

Plenty of new camera options for next year.

[Charles Papert]

Yes, theoretically the Scarlet should look like the Epic. But until the camera really gets in the wild, who knows what exactly is going to be under the hood. This is RED after all; there have been more than a few changes over time.

I was initially thinking that it showed the most promise of the three, especially with the PL/EF interchangeability (one of the more baffling aspects of the C300--different bodies??). But I hate to give up that high sensitivity.

[Brian Drysdale]

I don't know how practical it would be to fit and I expect it would void the warranty in modifying the camera, but the P+S IMS would be an interesting option. P+S TECHNIK | Professional Cine Equipment Manufacture

[Steve Kimmel]

Originally Posted by Jim Martin

BTW, We should have pricing info by mid-next week.....I see there has been some price info posted for Europe on various sites....

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com

Hi Jim: Any word on pricing?

Thanks.

[Jim Martin]

We're still at least a week away or so......

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com