C300: C300 mkiii?

Run&Gun said:
Isn't it ironic that not that long ago, we wanted a clean image and now that we have it, people want noise back in the image. Oh, I'm sorry, "texture" and "grain".
Click to expand...

Coming from a decade of working with film, I never wanted a "clean" digital image, I wanted the same DR, latitude and colorimetry that 35mm film has. I was never bugged by film grain, I always kind of liked it unless it was out of control like in Super 8. Way more of a problem
with S16 than 35mm. The ASA 200 and 500 35mm stocks were and still are so beautiful. Of course, film is just the medium and we've all seen lots of badly shot film, and yes, I've seen film with a weird or bad transfer that could have been video. But if you had a clue as to what
you were doing with exposure and lighting, film is magic. I looked at a project I shot on 35mm 20 years ago a few weeks ago, I don't even have a HiDef master of it, just a DVCAM transfer from DBeta and it still looks amazing. When I worked on my first season of Homeland, that
was the first time I saw the actual output of the Arri Alexa and on the monitors in video village, it was uncanny, like watching a telecine session. But of course David Klein was and is a great DP too!
 
I generally prefer the look of video. That's why I find it ironic when people say "it looks like video" like it's an insult.

There are plenty of big budget movies that still have the budget to shoot on film, but the DPs chose to shoot on video most of the time these days, I would imagine in many cases, because they prefer the look, and not just the workflow.
 
I remember during the early years of HD, they came out with finer grain film stocks, because a lot of the traditional film stocks that the TV dramas had been shooting on were too grainy and looked like bad after the HD telecine.

Yes, if film was shot well, it can look great damn near forever. I have the Blu-ray box set of Back to the Future. The first one was shot in ‘84/‘85 and it looks like it could have been shot yesterday.
 
Film can look great. But it's generally significantly more expensive, less practical and the number of resources available for film stocks besides Kodak have dwindled (I used to really like shooting Fuji stocks for a much less saturated/pastel color sort of look).
So many clients want to hover around video village these days or walk around with a monitor and Teradek, the output from a video tap is pretty bad compared to a regular monitor output. Telecine is it's own whole thing that has to be dealt
with and it's very expensive now since there isn't the competition that there used to be in that business years ago. I think film is really only right for certain projects these days, it's too easy to rent an Arri Alexa Mini and it's true
most viewers probably can't or can barely tell the difference between 35mm film and an Arri.

For shooting certain documentary subjects, I think S16 represents an interesting option, as long as it's a subject that doesn't require endless shooting and rolling the camera. S16 cameras are small, light, relatively easy to use, I really miss my Arri SR2,
that camera was so easy and fun to shoot with, much smaller and lighter to rig out than what's typically used in higher end production today. But just like 35mm, it's much cheaper, easier, simpler to just pick up a video camera.
 
1D XMKIII began to ship a couple of days ago and new footage is being uploaded daily. Or daily.
 
chris f said:
I spoke it into existence! :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG) https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-will-announce-a-new-cinema-eos-camera-ahead-of-nab-cr3/
Click to expand...

Ha... I’m sure they were just waiting for you to say something. :-)

Canon rumors has never been particularly spot on relative to the video division. He’s been posting about a c300 replacement for a few years now. To me it would seem odd to have a camera too close to the c500ii specs, and more likely something that sits just below the fx9 (and above the c200). Problem is the split hairs are getting thinner all th time. Maybe the R mount makes an appearance, or they look at entry level as both the c100 and fs5 are getting long in the tooth. Who knows. I’m out of dough, so, I’ll be watching from the sidelines on this one.
 
Will it stay a S35 sensor or be FF? WIll it just basically be a C300 MKII that can do internal RAW and 4K 60p? WIll it just be a C200 with dual CF slots and TC i/o?
Lots of questions about where in the line and how it will slot in between the C200 and the C500 MKII
 
puredrifting said:
Will it stay a S35 sensor or be FF? WIll it just basically be a C300 MKII that can do internal RAW and 4K 60p? WIll it just be a C200 with dual CF slots and TC i/o?
Lots of questions about where in the line and how it will slot in between the C200 and the C500 MKII
Click to expand...

This one is a mystery to me. The C500II was really a surprise in a way as it was so un-canon like in that it killed off a product line, and offered just about everything people might be asking for, in a mid-tier price point. I have a hard time imagining there is something in the pipeline that is as surprising, and doesn't just recycle old technologies, except maybe 8k, or R-mount. Maybe there is a truly new s35 sensor (5.9k)..but man that would put it squarely against this new camera. Maybe its a price point change...combine the c300II and the C200, and sell it for 8K. Frankly...seeing as the C500Ii is barely shipping and hasn't even seen an NAB...I'm really surprised they'd have a new camera at all...but Canon will be Canon.
 
puredrifting said:
Will it stay a S35 sensor or be FF? WIll it just basically be a C300 MKII that can do internal RAW and 4K 60p? WIll it just be a C200 with dual CF slots and TC i/o?
Lots of questions about where in the line and how it will slot in between the C200 and the C500 MKII
Click to expand...

My hunch (and hope) is that it's a crippled C500MKII with a super 35mm sensor (6K or 8K) but now that I think of it, I bet they'll put the 4.5K sensor from the C700 in there - gotta be lots of those laying around. Same exact body and extension units. Keep raw, full frame, and anamorphic limited to the C500 to protect it for more "pro-cinema" applications (wouldn't shock me if Canon in true C300 fashion also crippled slow motion...). Almost like a backwards step from the C700 to C700FF.
 
chris f said:
My hunch (and hope) is that it's a crippled C500MKII with a super 35mm sensor (6K or 8K) but now that I think of it, I bet they'll put the 4.5K sensor from the C700 in there - gotta be lots of those laying around. Same exact body and extension units. Keep raw, full frame, and anamorphic limited to the C500 to protect it for more "pro-cinema" applications (wouldn't shock me if Canon in true C300 fashion also crippled slow motion...). Almost like a backwards step from the C700 to C700FF.
Click to expand...

That would make sense with recycling the C700 sensor. I don't think they would bother with a 6K sensor in an S35 because it doesn't actually gain them much. The nice thing about 6K in a full frame sensor is that also get 4K in S35 in the same camera and everything scales easily. 6K in an S35 doesn't get you any useable crop and you are stuck doing tricks to get the 4K downsample and dealing with the added noise created by the smaller photosites. At least with 8K to 4K you would get a direct bayer pattern with finer noise pattern and increased resolution without all of the artifacts. Maybe Canon would even bring back their RGB 444 12bit from the C300 II in a 4K package. That would be more efficient than CRL.
 
I have this gut feeling that the C300 Mark III could be a pretty cool smaller RF mount camera.

More expensive doesn't always mean better for everyone. A C500 Mark II could have better image quality on paper (which most wouldn't notice anyway), but this camera could have cooler features like their patent pending IBIS (not digital IS), electronic ND (if they ever decide to offer it), 4K 444 (like mentioned above) would be pretty sweet, even more improved AF, etc.

If anything, I also think the entire line needs a redesign. (Enough with the hanging monitor and cable on an oversized handle.)
 
NorBro said:
I have this gut feeling that the C300 Mark III could be a pretty cool smaller RF mount camera.

More expensive doesn't always mean better for everyone. A C500 Mark II could have better image quality on paper (which most wouldn't notice anyway), but this camera could have cooler features like their patent pending IBIS (not digital IS), electronic ND (if they ever decide to offer it), 4K 444 (like mentioned above) would be pretty sweet, even more improved AF, etc.

If anything, I also think the entire line needs a redesign. (Enough with the hanging monitor and cable on an oversized handle.)
Click to expand...

The rumor is that the new camera will have the same general body as the C500 II/C200. I think the new design is a vast improvement to the C300 MK II. The only thing I would like is some vertical mounting points along the top of the camera. I don't like using the handle, but I don't think I different handle is better. Dome vertical mounting points or a helmet is all I want. Even so, I don't think I will be adding anything to the C500 II or replacing the handle. I vastly prefer the monitor on a cord because it means that I can move the monitor off the camera quickly. I regularly put the monitor on the base of a tripod or slider or mount it somewhere on a gimbal. BTW, the C500 II fits quite easily on a gimbal.
 
They could build it like a more modern C100 (better screen, buttons, move some things around), and offer a port for that C200 or C500 monitor - that's also sold separately - for those who want to use it or use it like you do (away from the camera).

A monitor on/in the camera makes sense to me. And the body can be a bit more compact too.

For gimbal use, it would be even easier to just flip the built-in screen around and use that.

This design was a no-brainer. It's a shame a 4K C100 Mark III was never released.

Canon C100 Mark II.jpg
 
P.S. With the above gimbal comment, I was thinking of systems in which you could see the back of the camera. (That wouldn't work for other gimbals as you'd need an external monitor somewhere else...but then that's when you could just plug in the mobile monitor. The best of both worlds.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top