C300 Discussion

[Dick Mays]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

I don't have anything constructive to add,
but like to type when I'm sad.

To the tune of Bohemian Rhapsody

[Mark David Williams]

The reason many are disapointed is not because it may or not be a fantastic ground breaking camera it may well be.

The camera does look like a great new entry into the world of professional film makers who have enough money to cover it.

The truth is most of us could probably stretch to it and max out a few credit cards and maybe miss a few mortgage payments. Anyway my idea of stretching to the limits is about £6000.

We all know a camera can be made with a good fixed lens for about £4000 We all know a stills camera can make a film camera with a NICE sensor for about £600.

We know if you take the nice lens away from the £4000 camera you have an even cheaper camera So we all understand that putting a 35mm sensor in a HD camera can't be that hard and can be done cheaply. We know Sony did this with their FS100 with no ND filters 8bit out one card box and also the FS100 did this with 8 bit out and a small sensor that neither fitted 16mm 2/3 or 35mm.

So the expectation was that logically someone could make a camera with 10 bit out ND filters with an S35mm sensor. Or even a sensor that could use 16mm or large sensor that could use stills lenses for about £4000 to £6000 price range

That was what I hoped was meant by something groundbreaking And although the C300 may very well be groundbreaking its out of my league as I can't afford it and even if I did stretch the limits I'd probably end up in the divorce courts with one very selfish *********** cited as the reason.

Did Canon know that people like me were hoping and expectations boosted to over excite levels so that some may give in and buy it even if they can't afford to. I guess one advantage is those who would have bought the Red or the F3 af100 fs100 have all been on hold waiting for Canons announcement so denying the other manufacturers sales. But meanwhile I and others have gone without a camera and waited for what? I think Canon should have been more forthcoming about who the camera was aimed at IE the F3 crowd.

So yes while it may be extraordinary it still keeps me out of the professional arena and the status quo remains unchanged. If I now buy an EX1 I know if I make a film I will be competing against those who will be using the C300 and unfortunatly in real world I will still be at a disadvantage. Many times on low budgets the look of a camera will determine how people will see it. That is why the camera makers have their professional division and consumer one. They know it.. I know it and thats why a price premium is paid.

So it's not so much is the camera good or bad its more the marketing strategy used.

[Brian Drysdale]

It's not always the camera that's the limitation, in fact that's the easy bit.

[Mark David Williams]

Well looking at it logically

10 bit out Great for post
Large sensor Great for creating the film look and fewer lights
ND filters Great for getting a nice open iris for shallow depth of field

I guess you can make great films and use workarounds for cameras that don't have the above like

8bit out Make sure you need minimum colour correction
Small sensor Use a letus adapter
ND filters Use a mattebox

So really you can make great films without a camera that has ND filters Large sensor or only 8 bit. However didnt we have the disagreement where the letus cuts down the resolution etc. Oh well lets move on.

You could also expect a manufacturer to be able to build what the consumer wants.

Anyway all the negatives aside. I'm sure many of us are disapointed and had hoped for a nice printer.

[Don Miller]

Let's hope the good news turns out to be the sensor. From pricing Canon thinks it's best in class. It's a novel design that should be significantly sharper and have few artifacts than the F3. Do we know if the camera has an anti-aliasing filter? If it does it's likely considerably weaker than the F3.

The develop money apparently went to the sensor and form factor. With the electronic package being from the XF300 class. The question I guess is how well the sensor is expressed in the bit size and color space. On paper Canon could of made us pay more attention to the sensor with an increased file size. But they didn't want to spend the money to do that. I think if it went beyond 4:2:2 8 bit we would have more of a wait and see attitude.

But we assume that the major determinant of final quality if the compression and file size. While in fact there are still room for substantial improvement in capture.

I doubt Red has the ability to buy a sensor compared to the best Canon and Sony can make.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

So it's not so much is the camera good or bad its more the marketing strategy used.

But how do you announce a new product?

If you just come out of the blue with "bang! look at these specs!" there'll be complaints of "but I only just got the xyz! why couldn't I have been given warning!" - if you announce "expect a new camera in 9 months time!" it gives your competitors time to get their act together with an effective counter before you get anything actually on sale. (As Sony did very effectively against the AF100.)

In that respect, a preliminary announcement a month or so before full details may be best marketing policy.

Whatever anybody thinks of the C300, I think the language used ("historic announcement" etc) was way over the top. It might have got attention this time round - I'm not sure it was clever in the long term.

[Dom Stevenson]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

It's not always the camera that's the limitation, in fact that's the easy bit.

Thank you Brian. And for your Many sensible contributions to this discussion.

Canon always gave the impression this was going to be a professional camera, so no surprise to see it priced As such. Those who talked themselves into believing they were going to get an alexa at a prosumer pricepoint have only themselves to blame.

You can't blame canon for the delusions across the blgosphere.

[Henry Coll]

If you have the best glass but then later compress to a lower jpg, your glass advantage goes away.

Let's say Canon's new C300 sensor is one of the best, better than the one on the F3. But then again, if its output is cut down to 8bit 50Mbps, while the F3 gives you uncompressed RGB 444 at 10 bit though dual link SDI, guess which camera will have more latitude, less artifacts and better color reproduction.

That's the biggest let down of the C300. An 8bit camera doesn't make much sense these days, specially at a $20k price point.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

So really you can make great films without a camera that has ND filters Large sensor or only 8 bit. However didnt we have the disagreement where the letus cuts down the resolution etc. Oh well lets move on.

You could also expect a manufacturer to be able to build what the consumer wants.

Anyway all the negatives aside. I'm sure many of us are disapointed and had hoped for a nice printer.

Yes, there are good feature films were made using 8 bit VX1000 mini DV cameras that received worldwide distribution. There are so many options now that you can use a wide range of cameras. I believe I mentioned that "Monsters" was shot using the 8 bit internal codec. The camera itself is only a small part, how good film will be is 80% decided before a frame is shot on the basis of the script, the cast and the crew.

You can shoot a good or even a great film with the C300 and there are a number of other S35mm sensor cameras that will allow you to do the same. You could record the 10 bit HD SDI output if you want.

[Mark David Williams]

How do you announce a new product?

Well
1) Wait until you're ready to launch then announce it
2) Pick your target audience to aim it at if you want to create an atmosphere of suspense.

I think what is clear is YES people were expecting a camera for about £4 to £7000 ish WHY Because the blurb said

Historic announcement... Ground breaking.... Blah Blah

The S35mm market has already been established and so we expected something historic and ground breaking and the marketing was seemingly aimed at all of us. So as the market already established with a clear king IE the Alexa and everyones level catered for all the way down through to the consumer it would have to be something that would change everything and as personally I couldn't see much they could do that would change everything as the F3 pretty much takes care of the lot My conclusion was that to be historic and groundbreaking it would have to mean it does what a camera like the F3 can do but at a FS100 price and logically why not Why could this not be done.

However mine and others conclusions although I think logical were fatally flawed as we were blindsided by a marketing campaign that effectively wasn't groundbreaking or historic it was actually an F3 competitor and while you can use the word historic in the context that Canon are new to the video camera sensor and new to this price point I dont think any of us consumers would see it that way. I also don't believe it is groundbreaking although it may be groundbreaking for canon.

However that aside I'm sure it is a great camera and will do well in the market Just that I am a little disapointed at the hopes I had built up and I'm not seeking to blame Canon for their marketing strategy as I know it's business. I do think that maybe marketing campaigns like this should have laws regulating the way a launch is advertised and the expectations it builds in those who dont have the down to earth business acumen to not see past it. I would imagine some have held off shooting and without doubt many have not bought cameras. This should be adressed for manufacturers as wll as consumers who may have been fooled regardless if it's percieved as their own fault by some.

[Mark David Williams]

Originally Posted by Brian Drysdale

Yes, there are good feature films were made using 8 bit VX1000 mini DV cameras that received worldwide distribution. There are so many options now that you can use a wide range of cameras. I believe I mentioned that "Monsters" was shot using the 8 bit internal codec. The camera itself is only a small part, how good film will be is 80% decided before a frame is shot on the basis of the script, the cast and the crew.

You can shoot a good or even a great film with the C300 and there are a number of other S35mm sensor cameras that will allow you to do the same.

Yep I though Monsters was a terrific achievement and bought the DVD I was impressed with the use of the EX1 and letus adapter on that film.I think it definately had its moment in time and value for indie film makers to take inspiration from. Did I think the quality of it matched an Alexa or an F3? Nope. There are a few films that have achieved success without using pro cameras all have been lucky and made something that hadn't been done like using a cheap video camera that simulated the home movie being made. Would I like to see the next James Bond film done on one of these? Would I go and watch it? Err no.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Mark David Williams

Did I think the quality of it matched an Alexa or an F3? Nope. There are a few films that have achieved success without using pro cameras all have been lucky and made something that hadn't been done like using a cheap video camera that simulated the home movie being made. Would I like to see the next James Bond film done on one of these? Would I go and watch it? Err no.

I imagine the successful films you're discussing have gone through development hell, putting deals together and various other hurtles. If you can do that successfully, the funds will come for a high end camera, but to get to that stage you have to prove yourself and a 8 bit camera can make a film that's both profitable and allows a film maker to prove themselves.

[Dom Stevenson]

If people stopped shooting because of a new camera announcement then more fool them.

And anyway, as Brian pointed out, camera specs are largely meaningless to film goers, who are more interested in the script etc.

The fact is a lot of folks on this thread allowed themselves to get carried away with ever more ludicrous speculation. And you can't blame canon for that.

This is canons initial foray into motion picture cameras, many more will follow. In the meantime there are many fantastic cheaper options around.

[Nicholas de Kock]

Dom it's not really about the spec's, cheaper DSLR's are great but they are a pain to use and focus accurately I think most of us was just hoping for an affordable half decent replacement for the DSLR. Priced competitively Canon would have owned the market but they are using old marketing/business models - I don't want 4k, I just want a decent S35 1080P camera I can afford.

[Paul Curtis]

Originally Posted by David Heath

I don't think that's true. 8 bit is more than enough for general acquisition - but not if you want to get heavily into extensive grading in post. You can squeeze a 12 bit scene into a 8 bit recording (by compressing highlights and lowlights) but it's a one way process - once it's done, it's done. Record the full 12 bit resolution and you have the option of later deciding exactly how you want the transfer charecteristic to be.

Perhaps 12 is optimistic but certainly 10+ bits of linear in 8 in no problem. It's just using those 8 bits in the right places. The most you'd get out of HDMI would be 10 anyway.

As you point out the camera might be upgradable in the future too.

cheers
paul