C300: C300 mkiii?

[cpreston]

The CVP guy mentioned how he doesn't/t like the audio controls placement..... I totally disagree. Canon found a good spot for audio.

When in short body, the operator is often shooting with the camera in front. As many C series users actually seem to like this about Canon.

In long body config, there are operator controls for audio on the addition unit.


To me, this makes film makers and ENG shooters taken care of.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one with this opinion. If the reviewers wanted to complain that Canon had designed the audio controls so you couldn't ride them at all, they might have a point. I find it nearly impossible to ride audio levels on the camera even when I can reach them. But with the way I and everyone I know handholds the Canon cameras, the audio controls are in the right location. If you need to go shoulder mount, I would use the v mount backplate and then audio meters would be on the operator side. That still doesn't mean I could ride that piddly audio dial while shooting, though.

 

[DLD]

... I think I'd rather watch YouTube cat video's ...

Philip Bloom it is.

... Not to sound too critical - but for me personally, it looks like most of the outdoor shots were overexposed ...

Since Canon paid for these, blown highlights were part of the deal. They could have also showcased the built-in ND filters but those aren't the news.

 

[Guest]

Not to sound too critical - but for me personally, it looks like most of the outdoor shots were overexposed -

While, probably over exposed, just to mention most of the slomo stuff is non-dual gain output. So, anything over 60fps will get that slight crisp or noise depending on the DP’s poison.

 

[Barry G]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one with this opinion. If the reviewers wanted to complain that Canon had designed the audio controls so you couldn't ride them at all, they might have a point. I find it nearly impossible to ride audio levels on the camera even when I can reach them. But with the way I and everyone I know handholds the Canon cameras, the audio controls are in the right location. If you need to go shoulder mount, I would use the v mount backplate and then audio meters would be on the operator side. That still doesn't mean I could ride that piddly audio dial while shooting, though.

Agreed...if anything the dials on the C500II seem less fiddle-able than the ones on my C300II. And one good thing about the much maligned clam shell design was the ability to mount the audio controls vertically on the back of the handle for tripod use...really easy to see what you were doing relative to audio. I've gone to running channel 1 audio into channel 2 and "dual gaining" my audio across 2 channels which seems to save my butt most of the time, rather than trying to adjust while I'm rolling.

You just made me think though...what about a "knob" appliqué -- adhere a 1/2" dowel of cork, rubber or acrylic onto the dial to make it "rideable"?

 

[puredrifting]

Agreed...if anything the dials on the C500II seem less fiddle-able than the ones on my C300II. And one good thing about the much maligned clam shell design was the ability to mount the audio controls vertically on the back of the handle for tripod use...really easy to see what you were doing relative to audio. I've gone to running channel 1 audio into channel 2 and "dual gaining" my audio across 2 channels which seems to save my butt most of the time, rather than trying to adjust while I'm rolling.

You just made me thing though...what about a "knob" appliqué -- adhere a 1/2" dowel of cork, rubber or acrylic onto the dial to make it "rideable"?

Just my opinion, but the words, "riding audio gain" and "DP/Video Camera Operator" should never be mentioned in the same sentence.
If it's that kind of shoot, you're short changing something without a sound mixer.

I agree with Eric, I never have sound mixers on any single cam, single subject interviews, unless it's a super high profile talent, but go over that and last year, I successfully lobbied producers to give me a sound mixer on almost all
of my walk and talk, BTS, film shoots.

 

[Barry G]

Just my opinion, but the words, "riding audio gain" and "DP/Video Camera Operator" should never be mentioned in the same sentence.
If it's that kind of shoot, you're short changing something without a sound mixer.

Ha. Of course you're right.

In my "market" the concept of a dedicated sound person is an obscure notion. I feel lucky when I can find someone to schlepp my stands.

 

[chris f]

I've gone to running channel 1 audio into channel 2 and "dual gaining" my audio across 2 channels which seems to save my butt most of the time, rather than trying to adjust while I'm rolling.

This is what I do as well. If I don't have a location sound mixer, this is about the extent of what I'm willing to do for audio. Anytime I hear someone talking about taking advantage of the extension unit and the 4-XLR inputs I scratch my head. If I was responsible for 4 different channels of audio there's no way I could put my proper amount of focus on the image I'm capturing.

 

[Grug]

I hope we'll see a new CLOG4 curve that takes this new DGO tech, and uses the lower noise level to push middle grey down a stop, and give us an added stop in the highlights rather than the shadows.

 

[Guest]

I hope we'll see a new CLOG4 curve that takes this new DGO tech, and uses the lower noise level to push middle grey down a stop, and give us an added stop in the highlights rather than the shadows.

+1

 

[Barry G]

This is what I do as well. If I don't have a location sound mixer, this is about the extent of what I'm willing to do for audio. Anytime I hear someone talking about taking advantage of the extension unit and the 4-XLR inputs I scratch my head. If I was responsible for 4 different channels of audio there's no way I could put my proper amount of focus on the image I'm capturing.

I've never had to do it until that little "live" show that we did a couple of weeks ago. We couldn't have a sound engineer in the room for distancing purposes, and didn't want to take a stereo mix off the board, which would limit what he did in post...so we ran 4 channels out of the mixer into the camera via a snake (my first time handheld with a big cable off the back of the camera) and just set the levels with a lot of overhead (which unfortunately hid some electronic noise in the headphones coming from her looper).

 

[Barry G]

I hope we'll see a new CLOG4 curve that takes this new DGO tech, and uses the lower noise level to push middle grey down a stop, and give us an added stop in the highlights rather than the shadows.

I think, in theory, that's what CLog2 is designed for, as it has additional headroom for highlights beyond what the current cameras can record. It doesn't really look like the camera is adding anything in the highlights though, so essentially, Canon is encoding it correctly. What you want is really an exposure and LUT issue. Underexpose by a stop and use LUTCalc to make a Log2 LUT that has a +1 stop offset and you'd be doing the same thing. I'm guessing the C3003 lets you load custom LUTs like the C500II so you can view corrected on the EVF/LCD?

 

[Grug]

I think, in theory, that's what CLog2 is designed for, as it has additional headroom for highlights beyond what the current cameras can record. It doesn't really look like the camera is adding anything in the highlights though, so essentially, Canon is encoding it correctly. What you want is really an exposure and LUT issue. Underexpose by a stop and use LUTCalc to make a Log2 LUT that has a +1 stop offset and you'd be doing the same thing. I'm guessing the C3003 lets you load custom LUTs like the C500II so you can view corrected on the EVF/LCD?

I'm sure it's an easy enough thing to fudge a workaround for (I rate cameras at different sensitivities all the time), but it would be nice to have a built-in curve that does it for you. So that when you set the camera to 1600 ISO (it's new "base" with CLOG4) it functions as such, and you don't have to worry about any brain farts where you forget how you're rating things, because the numbers displayed on the monitors don't match up.

 

[puredrifting]

This is what I do as well. If I don't have a location sound mixer, this is about the extent of what I'm willing to do for audio. Anytime I hear someone talking about taking advantage of the extension unit and the 4-XLR inputs I scratch my head. If I was responsible for 4 different channels of audio there's no way I could put my proper amount of focus on the image I'm capturing.

I'm on the JW Sound Forum quite a bit and there are plenty of pro sound mixers looking for work.

I did have two bad experiences with location sound mixers in 2019, but in neither case did I hire the sound mixer, I was freelance DPing and in both cases, the location sound
mixers had bad attitudes, didn't do what the producer requested and in one case, they royally screwed up the sound mix to my camera, 100% distorted audio but thankfully they were rolling on their Sound Devices recorder to we had a clean recording. But in the mania to
get a cut done with the client quickly, editors have to almost always use camera audio until they get picture lock, then they can conform the location sound mixers sound with camera audio. The editor wasn't happy that my camera audio on our highest profile talent was useless.
I wasn't monitoring audio, sound mixer was so not sure why they didn't hear it and fix it?

As a DP, I look at the sound mixer as a partner in shooting good looking and sounding material. Single cam and talent, I have it covered but over that, you need to push for a dedicated sound mixer. Barry you do great work, you should really
push for a sound mixer when needed. I'm sure there must be at least a few sound mixers up where you are? I hear you about a PA. I always tell clients, "I can do it all myself. But you better have a lot of patience and time because I'm just one person.
The shoot will go smoother, quicker and more efficiently if you budget for a PA and Gaffer for me. And a sound mixer if we have more than one talent at a time." That's been working lately for me. I much prefer a four person crew, me, gaffer, sound mixer and PA.
That's a great sweet spot.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

In my experience the difference between a PA and a gaffer for a basic interview shoot are minimal, with the PA being half or less than half the cost. A gaffer often has not used and is not familiar with my equipment (such as a Practilite 802, Litepanels Gemini, Luxli Timpani), so the time it takes them to figure out how to turn it on, change color temperature, etc., is the same as a PA. A PA also has the same skills that anyone in a first world country has of plugging lights into power outlets, unwrapping extension cords (I guess a gaffer may have better cord wrapping skills but I don't own professional stingers so I'm not that particular with my extension cords), carrying bags of lights, setting up light stands, etc.

As for how the lights should be setup, where they'll be setup, artistic decisions, etc., as the DP I feel that's my job, so again a gaffer's input is rather useless here. That is for interviews; for narrative films if I have a good gaffer I'll be much more collaborative and likely to rely on their artistic and technical choices or suggestions, but for interviews it's often so straightforward and I do so many of them that I've pretty much got a standard system down and am typically not looking for artistic input from a gaffer. If anything sometimes gaffers offer me suggestions for interview lighting, I sometimes take it, and then regret it because it's not how I like doing things (and I wouldn't do things how I do them without reason, reason being that I think how I do it is the best way to do it to my knowledge), and then sometimes have them revert the setup back to how I typically do things.

Sure, for bigger interview setups with a 12 x 12, HMIs, etc., then a gaffer comes more into play, but considering I don't own bigger lighting equipment, the times that I'll use such setups for interviews are very rare, perhaps once a year or less. Meanwhile, my clients have requested gaffers for interview shoots using my basic lighting equipment perhaps 5-10 times per year on average, and each time I feel it's a waste of their money when a PA could have done the exact same thing, but, I'm not complaining too much; it's their money. It only becomes a problem for me when they're trying to talk down my rate during negotiations to fit their overall budget but still feel they need to throw money at a gaffer. At that point I may try explaining to them that we can nix the gaffer in favor of a PA (or on one since I can do it on my own too) in order to stick closer to their budget.

 

[Guest]

I'm sure it's an easy enough thing to fudge a workaround for (I rate cameras at different sensitivities all the time), but it would be nice to have a built-in curve that does it for you. So that when you set the camera to 1600 ISO (it's new "base" with CLOG4) it functions as such, and you don't have to worry about any brain farts where you forget how you're rating things, because the numbers displayed on the monitors don't match up.

+1

 

[Guest]

In my experience the difference between a PA and a gaffer for a basic interview shoot are minimal, with the PA being half or less than half the cost. A gaffer often has not used and is not familiar with my equipment (such as a Practilite 802, Litepanels Gemini, Luxli Timpani), so the time it takes them to figure out how to turn it on, change color temperature, etc., is the same as a PA. A PA also has the same skills that anyone in a first world country has of plugging lights into power outlets, unwrapping extension cords (I guess a gaffer may have better cord wrapping skills but I don't own professional stingers so I'm not that particular with my extension cords), carrying bags of lights, setting up light stands, etc.

As for how the lights should be setup, where they'll be setup, artistic decisions, etc., as the DP I feel that's my job, so again a gaffer's input is rather useless here. That is for interviews; for narrative films if I have a good gaffer I'll be much more collaborative and likely to rely on their artistic and technical choices or suggestions, but for interviews it's often so straightforward and I do so many of them that I've pretty much got a standard system down and am typically not looking for artistic input from a gaffer. If anything sometimes gaffers offer me suggestions for interview lighting, I sometimes take it, and then regret it because it's not how I like doing things (and I wouldn't do things how I do them without reason, reason being that I think how I do it is the best way to do it to my knowledge), and then sometimes have them revert the setup back to how I typically do things.

Sure, for bigger interview setups with a 12 x 12, HMIs, etc., then a gaffer comes more into play, but considering I don't own bigger lighting equipment, the times that I'll use such setups for interviews are very rare, perhaps once a year or less. Meanwhile, my clients have requested gaffers for interview shoots using my basic lighting equipment perhaps 5-10 times per year on average, and each time I feel it's a waste of their money when a PA could have done the exact same thing, but, I'm not complaining too much; it's their money. It only becomes a problem for me when they're trying to talk down my rate during negotiations to fit their overall budget but still feel they need to throw money at a gaffer. At that point I may try explaining to them that we can nix the gaffer in favor of a PA (or on one since I can do it on my own too) in order to stick closer to their budget.

The lower range gaffer doesn’t really exist. They’ve either immediately been promoted to bigger things, or they became a DP that gets to call the shots on smaller shoots, and take get the rental rates on gear.

So, in a way, i tend to agree. On smaller budgets and crews, the gaffer is often not much more than a PA. But that’s because any gaffer with the slightest ability or intelligence is too busy on bigger things to have time for little shoots where the DP brings the lights.

 

[puredrifting]

In my experience the difference between a PA and a gaffer for a basic interview shoot are minimal, with the PA being half or less than half the cost. A gaffer often has not used and is not familiar with my equipment (such as a Practilite 802, Litepanels Gemini, Luxli Timpani), so the time it takes them to figure out how to turn it on, change color temperature, etc., is the same as a PA. A PA also has the same skills that anyone in a first world country has of plugging lights into power outlets, unwrapping extension cords (I guess a gaffer may have better cord wrapping skills but I don't own professional stingers so I'm not that particular with my extension cords), carrying bags of lights, setting up light stands, etc.

As for how the lights should be setup, where they'll be setup, artistic decisions, etc., as the DP I feel that's my job, so again a gaffer's input is rather useless here. That is for interviews; for narrative films if I have a good gaffer I'll be much more collaborative and likely to rely on their artistic and technical choices or suggestions, but for interviews it's often so straightforward and I do so many of them that I've pretty much got a standard system down and am typically not looking for artistic input from a gaffer. If anything sometimes gaffers offer me suggestions for interview lighting, I sometimes take it, and then regret it because it's not how I like doing things (and I wouldn't do things how I do them without reason, reason being that I think how I do it is the best way to do it to my knowledge), and then sometimes have them revert the setup back to how I typically do things.

Sure, for bigger interview setups with a 12 x 12, HMIs, etc., then a gaffer comes more into play, but considering I don't own bigger lighting equipment, the times that I'll use such setups for interviews are very rare, perhaps once a year or less. Meanwhile, my clients have requested gaffers for interview shoots using my basic lighting equipment perhaps 5-10 times per year on average, and each time I feel it's a waste of their money when a PA could have done the exact same thing, but, I'm not complaining too much; it's their money. It only becomes a problem for me when they're trying to talk down my rate during negotiations to fit their overall budget but still feel they need to throw money at a gaffer. At that point I may try explaining to them that we can nix the gaffer in favor of a PA (or on one since I can do it on my own too) in order to stick closer to their budget.

I get into some weird situations where having my gaffer is indispensible. Shot a two camera interview with Herb Alpert, in his upstairs art gallery/loft, green screen for a documentary film. The ceiling is covered in skylights, the kind with no shades. We have no access to the roof of the building.
While I am setting up green screen, lighting it, setting up camera, my gaffer using my 14 C-stands, quite a few bigger steel stands too, literally builds a room out of Duvetyne for me. It has a roof, sides and a back and front, all blacked out. It's huge, probably 35' deep and 15-20' wide.
He builds the entire room within a room for me in less than two hours, working by himself while I am setting up camera. We have a sound mixer and PA but PA is parking my car (we're in Santa Monica where parking is about like Manhattan, it's a nightmare).

I am able to light a perfect green screen, no spill from ambient light. There is absolutely no way I could have done it with just me and a PA, it would have taken me about four hours total. It was genius gripology too from my gaffer, that makes him indispensible, sometimes even for a simple interview. But that's a weird situation.
He is usually on features but he is friends with the producer and will shoot bigger interview setups with me when he can.

 

[Barry G]

I get into some weird situations where having my gaffer is indispensible. Shot a two camera interview with Herb Alpert, in his upstairs art gallery/loft, green screen for a documentary film. The ceiling is covered in skylights, the kind with no shades. We have no access to the roof of the building.
While I am setting up green screen, lighting it, setting up camera, my gaffer using my 14 C-stands, quite a few bigger steel stands too, literally builds a room out of Duvetyne for me. It has a roof, sides and a back and front, all blacked out. It's huge, probably 35' deep and 15-20' wide.
He builds the entire room within a room for me in less than two hours, working by himself while I am setting up camera. We have a sound mixer and PA but PA is parking my car (we're in Santa Monica where parking is about like Manhattan, it's a nightmare).

I am able to light a perfect green screen, no spill from ambient light. There is absolutely no way I could have done it with just me and a PA, it would have taken me about four hours total. It was genius gripology too from my gaffer, that makes him indispensible, sometimes even for a simple interview. But that's a weird situation.
He is usually on features but he is friends with the producer and will shoot bigger interview setups with me when he can.

Maybe you should have shot it in his garage. . I'm impressed with how much duvetyne you carry around with you. And the length producers will go to not have the celebrity drop by a stage...but I live in cow town. Thanks for the story though, I'm going to use it and try to get me a gaffer for my next "surfer and his dog" interview.

 

[puredrifting]

Maybe you should have shot it in his garage. . I'm impressed with how much duvetyne you carry around with you. And the length producers will go to not have the celebrity drop by a stage...but I live in cow town. Thanks for the story though, I'm going to use it and try to get me a gaffer for my next "surfer and his dog" interview.

When I'm the DP, I just do what the producer and director want to do and this was, "We're going to shoot Herb in his loft, make it work". We shot Quincy Jones for the same project in his living room. We shot John Legend on a stage in Hollywood. This was in 2018 when I still had my Chevy Duramax 2500 HD Silverado and could carry around all of this stuff.
Have since sold the truck and the 32' fifth wheei I used to haul with it so no need for the truck anymore. Now it's a compact car so no more carrying huge amounts of Duvetyne and fourteen C-stands. My Gaffer has a Mini Van so we still max out the back of his van at times, we did for a few projects last year for
a commercial campaign. I love having five tons and big stuff but that's rare for me, maybe once or twice a year.

 

[Barry G]

When I'm the DP, I just do what the producer and director want to do and this was, "We're going to shoot Herb in his loft, make it work". We shot Quincy Jones for the same project in his living room. We shot John Legend on a stage in Hollywood. This was in 2018 when I still had my Chevy Duramax 2500 HD Silverado and could carry around all of this stuff.
Have since sold the truck and the 32' fifth wheei I used to haul with it so no need for the truck anymore. Now it's a compact car so no more carrying huge amounts of Duvetyne and fourteen C-stands. My Gaffer has a Mini Van so we still max out the back of his van at times, we did for a few projects last year for
a commercial campaign. I love having five tons and big stuff but that's rare for me, maybe once or twice a year.

sorry...I was being funny...not criticizing you at all. I guess the part about choosing that location for green screen, seemed like an odd choice on the producer side...and one of those things we laugh about here in the sticks when when our $500 client wants us to do something they saw on tv last night... but as you say...do as you're told.