C300: C300 mkII rumours are getting serious

DLD said:
I...instead of having a 30 Mbps broadband for $40/mo, they'll need to subscribe to a 50 Mbps service for $70/mo.
Click to expand...


I'd LOVE to have 30 Mbs for $40. I've had the same Time Warner plan for maybe 13-14 years, their 'standard internet' plan. 10 years ago I was always getting 25-30Mbs+. Now it's crept up to almost $65 a month and I get anywhere between 1.5Mbs to 15-16Mbs when I test it. On my iPhone 6 on Verizon LTE I'm easily besting that with 20-30Mbs+ and many times in the 50-60Mbs+ range. In an arena a few months ago I tested 67.11Mbs down and 19.65Mbs up. That's ridiculous. My area is one of the new areas that Google Fiber may be coming to, but unfortunately I'm probably at least 20 miles from where they will actually have their service. These ISP's need severe competition. I hope that the Comcast/Time Warner merger is not allowed to happen(I heard it's on the rocks). There's little-to-no competition in most markets as it is. The last thing we need is two of the biggest providers, who already are known for poor customer service, to become one company in what is an almost monopolistic industry in most markets, anyway.

But, the FCC did pass a rule stating what is considered/classified/can be called broadband internet, so at least maybe they will stop telling us the hamburger they're serving us is a fillet.
 
sonofaresiii said:
Interesting, I'd be far less concerned about 4k for a tv show than say an indie feature or promo work.

It does seem to be the way of the future though so I'm not sure I can keep ignoring it like I have been.
Click to expand...

I would love to keep ignoring it but we will be pitching to Amazon, Netflix and Hulu as well. 4K is necessary for on-line outlets right now. To me, it is mostly a nuisance.
 
Run&Gun said:
I'd LOVE to have 30 Mbs for $40...
Click to expand...
I was using those rates as a general example.

Here's what I have listed via the Atlantic Broadband (I am sort of SOL here in the condo land)

Starter Plus - $44.99 - 5 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload

Express - $51.99/mo ($29.99/ for the first 12 months) - 30 Mbps/3Mbps

Unleashed - $74.99/mo ($44.99/ for the first 12) - 75 Mbps/5Mbps

Peak - $201.99/mp (no specials) - 110 Mbps/7 Mbps

I usually test my out at my subscribed 8 Mbps, enough for 1440p on You Tube but way too much buffering for 2160p (and, visually, there's no difference on my old monitor between the 2.5 and 4K anyway).

If the new FCC rules go into effect - and remember, the last ones were thrown out in courts and these will have a lot of lobbying against from the line owners too - I expect a significant price hike per given speed. Of course, once VP9/HEVC are fully implemented, 10-15 Mbps might be enough for most streaming ... naturally, the broadband companies offer a staggered speed setup, the lowest of which is insufficient for 4K and the second of which is often excessive and excessively priced as well.

I read a piece yesterday that the MPAA - currently headed by an ex-Democratic Party senator Chris Dodd - did not lobby for the net neutrality rules because MPAA works on an unanimity among its six members and Comcast was obviously staunchly against the FCC. I don't see this working out in anyone's favor ... well, other than the GOP fundraising chairmen because there'll be a lot of money headed their way now. On-demand 4K streaming might be set back years and that is bad for the hardware manufacturers and the Hollywood studios.
 
DLD said:
I read a piece yesterday that the MPAA - currently headed by an ex-Democratic Party senator Chris Dodd - did not lobby for the net neutrality rules because MPAA works on an unanimity among its six members and Comcast was obviously staunchly against the FCC. I don't see this working out in anyone's favor ... well, other than the GOP fundraising chairmen because there'll be a lot of money headed their way now. On-demand 4K streaming might be set back years and that is bad for the hardware manufacturers and the Hollywood studios.
Click to expand...

Just FYI, I'm fairly certain political comments are frowned upon if not outright
prohibited so you may want to tread lightly here. Or think of an alternate way to
phrase it. Not saying I agree or disagree with you but I think there are good reasons
for staying away from discussions that dip into political commentary.
 
alaskacameradude said:
Just FYI, I'm fairly certain political comments are frowned upon if not outright
prohibited so you may want to tread lightly here. Or think of an alternate way to
phrase it. Not saying I agree or disagree with you but I think there are good reasons
for staying away from discussions that dip into political commentary.
Click to expand...

One minor political snark aside, this is more of an economics issue. I am not arguing whether this was a right or a wrong rule to pass, although I obviously have an opinion. It's just that most "net neutrality" supporters believe that this will make their internet experience better. I think it will make it worse or, at best, more expensive for the services received. The pipeline owners will simply average out their costs across their entire subscriber base. Given that they are local monopolies/duopolies, their pricing and service structure will reflect that power. If there is broad demand for 4K, then they will raise prices for everyone per given tier. If there's no demand for 4K, they will lower speeds for everyone per given tier. Everyone loses but the biggest losers will be the niche customers - those don't need 4K but are forced into paying higher fees just to get any broadband and those who do want 4K but may see far too much buffering during the busiest hours.

And don't get me started on the cable/phone companies customer service. To improve those, you need more than government. You need an act of G-d. (I keed, I keed)
 
alaskacameradude said:
Just FYI, I'm fairly certain political comments are frowned upon if not outright
prohibited so you may want to tread lightly here. Or think of an alternate way to
phrase it. Not saying I agree or disagree with you but I think there are good reasons
for staying away from discussions that dip into political commentary.
Click to expand...

But this is an important issue that will affect ALL OF US when it comes to content on the WEB (right down to your website and e-mail). Many of us here deal with web content or hand off to people who's entire business is web based. A wide open and free internet could go into the control of a massive leviathan. Could lead to overtime you put something on the web, you will be filling out paperwork for approval. But we don't know because we are not able to see this bill. If it's so good, why can't we see this bill? You should all be VERY concerned about what is going on with this Net Neutrality BS. By the way, you're TV, computer, Cell phone, will all be affected. How is it you get your work displayed?
 
dustylense said:
But this is an important issue that will affect ALL OF US when it comes to content on the WEB (right down to your website and e-mail). Many of us here deal with web content or hand off to people who's entire business is web based. A wide open and free internet could go into the control of a massive leviathan. Could lead to overtime you put something on the web, you will be filling out paperwork for approval. But we don't know because we are not able to see this bill. If it's so good, why can't we see this bill? You should all be VERY concerned about what is going on with this Net Neutrality BS. By the way, you're TV, computer, Cell phone, will all be affected. How is it you get your work displayed?
Click to expand...

Look, I get it, and yes I AM concerned. More so, because where I live, the primary internet provider IS the cable company. They want no
part of people 'cutting the cord' so if you do not also purchase cable with your internet subscription, they limit your data use just like
a cell phone company. Lucky for me, there is an alternate ISP (for the time being anyways, the cable company is trying to buy them
out and has in fact bought our their cell division) which does not cap my usage, so I am free to send and receive video across the internet
at least for the time being. I am no fan of the big cable companies either. My reference was to the comment about
"GOP fundraising chairmen will be the only ones happy with this ruling". I wasn't saying don't discuss the issue, just
cautioning people on bringing politics into the discussion. Feel free to ignore me, I'm NOT a mod. But I think those who
are mods have made it clear that this type of political comment is not what they want on this board. Again, not trying
to offend, just would rather see the discussion not be cut off because of political comments. By all means make your
opinions known to your elected officials. Even better if you can point to the fact that you have a business that helps
the community that will be affected by the ruling......
 
DLD said:
One minor political snark aside, this is more of an economics issue. I am not arguing whether this was a right or a wrong rule to pass, although I obviously have an opinion. It's just that most "net neutrality" supporters believe that this will make their internet experience better. I think it will make it worse or, at best, more expensive for the services received. The pipeline owners will simply average out their costs across their entire subscriber base. Given that they are local monopolies/duopolies, their pricing and service structure will reflect that power. If there is broad demand for 4K, then they will raise prices for everyone per given tier. If there's no demand for 4K, they will lower speeds for everyone per given tier. Everyone loses but the biggest losers will be the niche customers - those don't need 4K but are forced into paying higher fees just to get any broadband and those who do want 4K but may see far too much buffering during the busiest hours.

And don't get me started on the cable/phone companies customer service. To improve those, you need more than government. You need an act of G-d. (I keed, I keed)
Click to expand...

As I said, I am not trying to offend, just hoping that it doesn't turn into a political fight, because those never turn out well.
As for the internet providers and what they will do....I think one of the ideas, behind the FCC lumping the classification of ISP's in
with the previous class of phone companies, is that in many areas, ISP's ARE basically monopolies and thus need to be regulated
by the government to protect consumers from exactly what you are talking about.
 
Why don't we keep the conversation to the Canon C300 mkii and off everything else. Not trying to be rude, but that is what this thread is about.
 
I actually appreciate insightful discussion of the real world application of 4K delivery and how it may affect people shooting the format. It is perhaps the most discussed specification of the C300ii and is a natural feature tangent of this thread.
 
When posts add up quickly we know we're on to a topic that needs to be discussed. Especially when facts are added that brings the discussion forward and it isn't just a circle argument between two or three users.

I understand your point Ryan, but don't agree with your reasoning that since it's a tangent it belongs here. In fact, I'd say the opposite is true: it's a tangent, so it should be in its own thread.

Historically, it has proven difficult to keep threads strictly on topic. Maybe sometimes we are looking more to reach the people writing in a thread, than commenting on the actual thread itself. But in doing so, the forum structure becomes cluttered and harder to navigate.

It's only human behaviour. Active moderation helps in situations like this, because you want to break out the discussion so far, and not having to start from scratch in a new thread.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
Point taken. Let's get back to the rumors. :tongue:
Click to expand...

In everyone's defence: there are few new ones to discuss! =)

Let's hope for a soft launch SOON with the specs and maybe even some clips. With a little luck Canon might even "optimise them for viewing on the web page". That way we get crisp 960x540 clips. It's always a shame when cinema companies launch cameras 2014/2015 with 480x270 demo material...
 
The rumors haven't mentioned this, but are there any changes in the form factor you all would like?

I like the configurations for the c300 when the handle monitor becoming an EVF. I feel like the c100 handle looks like it's easier to ride the audio lvls on, because of course it doesn't have a monitor in the way. I wonder if the c300 mk II incorporated that into it's design while keeping the monitor.
 
I don't think anyone knows yet.

The only thing I heard through the grapevine was that the C500 mmii was going to be designed more as a proper shoulder mounted camera.
 
Ughh, I lost a job with a new client this week because I didn't have the C300 MKI. I explained that the C100 with the Ninja Blade was actually shooting a much better codec at 220 Mbps, using the same sensor and he liked my reel, I had the perfect sample he wanted to see on a day in the life piece I shot for Sony. But in the end, the "name and rep" of the C300 sold him over using me. Now I think I must buy the C300 MKII simply for the brainwashed masses who hire DPs based off of the camera they own. First time I have ever lost a gig from not owning the right camera. I told him I could have rented a C300 but that put us over budget and he had a friend who owns the C300.

Weird, I am also a producer and when I hire DPs, I rarely care which camera they own, use, prefer, I hire based off of lighting skills, not model numbers. If they don't own the camera I want to use, we rent it. That said, the C300 MKII, if it isn't too expensive for my budget, seems as if it will be a sound business decision.
 
Chiskon said:
The rumors haven't mentioned this, but are there any changes in the form factor you all would like?

I like the configurations for the c300 when the handle monitor becoming an EVF. I feel like the c100 handle looks like it's easier to ride the audio lvls on, because of course it doesn't have a monitor in the way. I wonder if the c300 mk II incorporated that into it's design while keeping the monitor.
Click to expand...

The current form factor is great until you put it on your shoulder then its a disaster. The XLR jacks and audio pots need to move lower onto the body. Its ridiculous having to reach up to the furthest front portion of the camera to adjust audio. Between that and having necessary buttons on the back (forcing the camera body further forward which isn't balanced) its just not designed to be used on the shoulder and its too large for me to use like a DSLR (C100 is better in this regard).

I seem to be in the minority though with my dislike of the C300 form factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top