Bern Caughey
Veteran
Publically, & privately, I've talked to Bob Primes, ASC, about the C300's 8-bit, & he emphatically responded there's more to it than the numbers suggest, & had seen no banding.
Canon EOS C100
- Thread starter Ted Ramasola
- Start date
philiplipetz
Veteran
I call penalty, unnecessary roughness, hitting out of bounds.
Sure Filmtools sells grip and HMI, but so what. I have watched industry pro after pro come into Jim's store and treat him as an equal, not a clerk peddling goods. Canon engineers talk to him, and almost no one else. To subject him to an personal attack on his integrity is beyond the boundary of an forum. He may believe in the Canon Cine line, just as John Brawley believes in the BMCC and Frank Gelncairn believes in the FS100, yet the forum world would be much smaller if we punished experts for their passion.
Jim and I do not always agree, but I respect his opinion and have never felt he stretched reality to sell me something. Respect is an important commodity and do not falsely imply that he lies to sell product.
Reality shows that never use fancy lights use the C300, take a minute and see the reality of our craft. Reality TV is shooting off the cuff and the Canon seems to be rising the top of that niche.
Jim, and people like them are enormous resources, but only as long as they are treated like resources. Jim will sell to very few people on this forum, most of his stuff costs too much. I think that the 5d is his lowest end camera, other than GoPros, not sure. Yet, he takes the time to share his knowledge, If we keep this up then he will talk only to the studio guys I see traipsing through his shop, it has to be more fun.
Last edited:
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
Yes we sell both......I'm referring to and assuming someone is properly lighting their scenes/film in a typical narrative fashion....not run and gun. Yes, there has been some poor footage out there but, as with most internet footage, a lot of additional artifacts end up adding or making initial bad or improper shooting problems look worse....and yes, just because this camera only needs roughly 1/3 of the lights one would usually use, one still needs to light properly. Most of the shows (1 hours, 1/2 hours, sitcoms, reality) and films (studio features, independents,etc) in town buy from us. Also, the new model (for the last 3 years or so) here in town is the owner/operator that gets hired for his skill, then rents his equipment to the production. Either way, regular working pros who know what they are doing have bought and/or are buying the camera....as posted before, the C300 is the hottest rental camera in town.....so that's where I'm coming from.
Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
PS - Yesterday, I ran into a regular poster that is a manufacturer and they stated that while they still read, they don't bother posting anymore because of exactly what I posted above....too much of "mine is better than yours" stuff
Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
PS - Yesterday, I ran into a regular poster that is a manufacturer and they stated that while they still read, they don't bother posting anymore because of exactly what I posted above....too much of "mine is better than yours" stuff
You can't judge a camera by some dodgy footage that it might produce.
Any camera can be shot poorly.
It's what the camera is capable of and what competent DPs do with it that creates the standard to make intelligent decisions around.
The footage from both the C300 and 1D-C are simply world class, if detail, low light capability and DR are the standard.
Having shot Canon cameras and only Canon cameras in our shop for 20 years, it's more than obvious, to me anyway, that their new sensor technology redefines what 8 bit and/or 4:2:0 mean in actual practice.
They've also, and I think smartly, focused on capturing ready to CC and edit footage directly to CF cards with both cameras.
So, while I still really wish the C300 could capture 60p 1080, and while I think it's dumb to not have peaking on the 1D-C, that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the IQ of both cameras.
And as far as the cameras themselves, Canon has a pretty great track record of design and build.
I've never had one of their cameras with the ergonomic and build "challenges" of say, the FS100 for instance.
Maybe we're their ideal target, but I'm actually starting to lean toward one of each as our new system.
There's virtually nothing you couldn't produce with the two cameras on set or in the field and the workflow is worth it's weight in gold for busy production shops.
The end.
Any camera can be shot poorly.
It's what the camera is capable of and what competent DPs do with it that creates the standard to make intelligent decisions around.
The footage from both the C300 and 1D-C are simply world class, if detail, low light capability and DR are the standard.
Having shot Canon cameras and only Canon cameras in our shop for 20 years, it's more than obvious, to me anyway, that their new sensor technology redefines what 8 bit and/or 4:2:0 mean in actual practice.
They've also, and I think smartly, focused on capturing ready to CC and edit footage directly to CF cards with both cameras.
So, while I still really wish the C300 could capture 60p 1080, and while I think it's dumb to not have peaking on the 1D-C, that has nothing to do with the actual quality of the IQ of both cameras.
And as far as the cameras themselves, Canon has a pretty great track record of design and build.
I've never had one of their cameras with the ergonomic and build "challenges" of say, the FS100 for instance.
Maybe we're their ideal target, but I'm actually starting to lean toward one of each as our new system.
There's virtually nothing you couldn't produce with the two cameras on set or in the field and the workflow is worth it's weight in gold for busy production shops.
The end.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Actually I think that came out wrong. Sorry.
Jim you work around quality productions 'typical narrative fiction' etc, I think this skews a perspective on a camera thats all.
Not a bad place - a different place
S
Jim you work around quality productions 'typical narrative fiction' etc, I think this skews a perspective on a camera thats all.
Not a bad place - a different place
S
cowpunk52
Veteran
This thread has just about gone of it's rocker. Let me be the first to say that I think it's useful to know how and why a camera works to help you get the best of it in practice. But at a certain point, you've also got to know when to throw all that stuff away and trust your skill. I'm gonna break this down by quoting a commenter from Reddit a few days ago:
The internet is an endless vortex of information relevant to anything you could ever possibly want to learn or know or do, and people are naturally inclined to go on an absorption spree before they take the first step out the door.
They want to be well informed. It's only natural. They want to make sure that their workout routine is as perfect as it can be. They buy protein shakes and creatine supplements and set up a very specific regimen with a very specific diet and small windows where they will intake very specific macro ratios before they ever pick up a weight. They want to make sure their business plan is picture perfect before they take steps to make it a reality. They want to learn their software stack from top to bottom and have an impeccable architecture and design before they write a line of code. And they want to have every tool and plugin available before they start making music.
But the great secret is that none of that s*%t matters. You hit a wall of diminishing returns extremely quickly. You mask time that you should be putting to practice as "constructive," even though it's only tangentially related to what you're doing, even though, right now, your time is better spent sitting at a monitor in a dark room and f#%king around. The breadth and depth of the world is massive and it's completely naive to think you can invest your internet hours and grasp everything in it without ever taking a dip into the muck.
Greatness takes practice. It takes hard work. It takes getting dirty. Make some music.
There's no reason anyone couldn't make a fantastically & breathtakingly beautiful film with a C300 or C100 - even with it's 8-bits, or 12 stops, or 50Mbps, or AVCHD, or 1080p30, or whatever. If you think you can't, you're only bullsh#tting yourself. If you've used the C300, you know the spec sheet doesn't tell the story. If you're trying to figure out if the C100 is right for you, wait until it comes out and go to your local dealer and try it out, or rent it from Lensrentals if you're don't have a local dealer. Until the C100 is on the market or in your hands, nothing can be released that can give you a definitive conclusion of how it performs in the field.
Just call me Buzz Killington. Now, who here likes a good story about a bridge?
The internet is an endless vortex of information relevant to anything you could ever possibly want to learn or know or do, and people are naturally inclined to go on an absorption spree before they take the first step out the door.
They want to be well informed. It's only natural. They want to make sure that their workout routine is as perfect as it can be. They buy protein shakes and creatine supplements and set up a very specific regimen with a very specific diet and small windows where they will intake very specific macro ratios before they ever pick up a weight. They want to make sure their business plan is picture perfect before they take steps to make it a reality. They want to learn their software stack from top to bottom and have an impeccable architecture and design before they write a line of code. And they want to have every tool and plugin available before they start making music.
But the great secret is that none of that s*%t matters. You hit a wall of diminishing returns extremely quickly. You mask time that you should be putting to practice as "constructive," even though it's only tangentially related to what you're doing, even though, right now, your time is better spent sitting at a monitor in a dark room and f#%king around. The breadth and depth of the world is massive and it's completely naive to think you can invest your internet hours and grasp everything in it without ever taking a dip into the muck.
Greatness takes practice. It takes hard work. It takes getting dirty. Make some music.
There's no reason anyone couldn't make a fantastically & breathtakingly beautiful film with a C300 or C100 - even with it's 8-bits, or 12 stops, or 50Mbps, or AVCHD, or 1080p30, or whatever. If you think you can't, you're only bullsh#tting yourself. If you've used the C300, you know the spec sheet doesn't tell the story. If you're trying to figure out if the C100 is right for you, wait until it comes out and go to your local dealer and try it out, or rent it from Lensrentals if you're don't have a local dealer. Until the C100 is on the market or in your hands, nothing can be released that can give you a definitive conclusion of how it performs in the field.
Just call me Buzz Killington. Now, who here likes a good story about a bridge?
Last edited:
8 bit isnt a problem for me. but paying 16k for it is 
technically i prefer the f3 to the c300 if it comes to pricing and features, but i do like the c300's default 50mbps 422 8bit. assuming its a lot lower than 16k it would be a great deal. my main issue with the c300 is the lcd monitor design and placement. maybe its ok for some but its truly unintutitve for me.
technically i prefer the f3 to the c300 if it comes to pricing and features, but i do like the c300's default 50mbps 422 8bit. assuming its a lot lower than 16k it would be a great deal. my main issue with the c300 is the lcd monitor design and placement. maybe its ok for some but its truly unintutitve for me.If I had enough money to get a C300 it'd probably be the camera I own.. That is, if I didn't have to worry about paying the money back fast. My only gripes with it are no interchangeable mount (really...) and, well, the price.
Everything else about the camera is fine by me.
I do think the C100 is priced a bit too high, kick me in the shins if you must, but why not 4,999.99? AT that price it's a bit more palatable.
Everything else about the camera is fine by me.
I do think the C100 is priced a bit too high, kick me in the shins if you must, but why not 4,999.99? AT that price it's a bit more palatable.
J Davis
Veteran
kholi, I think we're at point were money is for more than just specs. The sensor and more importantly the color algorithms attached to the sensor are the where the money's at.
I've seen it with red, same footage, same sensor dump, yet the color improved vastly over the years as they improved their color. Now I don;t mean to derail conversation to red but I use this to illustrate that the sensor is just a sensor and specs are just specs. The algorithm makes all the difference.
stefancolson
Well-known member
I can't remember the last time I felt like the camera was the limiting factor in terms of production quality. Maybe with low budget daytime exteriors when shooting with a camera with limited DR (here's looking at you GH2), but all of these cameras are capable of fantastic images. I'm much more interested in workflow, ergonomics, and what a particular camera allows me to do than I am in that last 1 or 2 percent of image quality, as I feel those factors make a much bigger difference in the end result when dealing with a less than ideal budget. Scarlet is capable of objectively superior images compared to the C300 for example, but I know that I can shoot more setups in a day with the C300 with less light, less (and lighter) support gear, far fewer batteries and media, and with a far cheaper and less cumbersome post workflow. I'll take those advantages over an extra stop of DR, more post latitude, and better resolution any day, and I'll bet that the end result is better for it.
That being said, Canon has hit an absolute home run with the design of the C300. It's feels great handheld, doesn't need a ridiculous franken-rig for most scenarios, is extremely sensitive, has a great EVF and *gasp* a useable monitor, great exposure control features, lots of DR, and a workflow that's about as easy as can be. If the C100 can keep step then it'll be a fantastic camera. The only thing keeping me from buying one is a rental market with extremely aggressive pricing and a strange market position. If there's a budget for something better than a DSLR, then there's probably a budget for a C300 or Scarlet rental at least. C100 should be a boon for owner-operators in markets with fewer rental options or small production companies. If I was still shooting weddings I would've clicked "buy" already.
That being said, Canon has hit an absolute home run with the design of the C300. It's feels great handheld, doesn't need a ridiculous franken-rig for most scenarios, is extremely sensitive, has a great EVF and *gasp* a useable monitor, great exposure control features, lots of DR, and a workflow that's about as easy as can be. If the C100 can keep step then it'll be a fantastic camera. The only thing keeping me from buying one is a rental market with extremely aggressive pricing and a strange market position. If there's a budget for something better than a DSLR, then there's probably a budget for a C300 or Scarlet rental at least. C100 should be a boon for owner-operators in markets with fewer rental options or small production companies. If I was still shooting weddings I would've clicked "buy" already.
philiplipetz
Veteran
You are correct that this is a $5k camera, the difference in price is due to the depreciation of the dollar. In Yen this is priced at what used to convert to $5k US.
8 bit isnt a problem for me. but paying 16k for it is
I agree completely. I'm talking just about this. In my opinion, the Internet is the right place where to present this point of view .-) .
Well, what you're doing is nothing but number-juggling. "on average" is not appropriate here - the gamma curve is there to assign the more available values to critical tonal ranges (midtones-skintones) for smoother gradation and less banding, sacrifying other tonal areas resolution (shadows, highlights). It's only the true-log gamma that assigns ranges of the same width to each f-stop. Canon's is not true-log. It is optimized. Sure it's the trade-off and 8 bits is not many to fit 12 stops - that's why it's an art and that's one of the reasons why different cameras, all using 8bit codecs, differ. F.ex. C300 seems to be excellent, while GH2 has severe banding.
The gamma optimization means that you need to nail your exposure - if you miss it, the optimization benefits are gone - what was meant to fall onto midtones (benefiting from increased tonal resolution) falls onto shadows or highlights. Then you need to correct in post, shifting and stretching areas of poor resolution, which results in banding.
joe 1008
Veteran
I is because of the weak dollar. In Europe it is about as hard to earn 1€ as it is to earn 1$ in the States. But the € is still stronger. The C300 shows up here at 12.000€ (without VAT) and sometimes even at a lower price. I'm sure in 2013 the C300 will migrate below the 10K hurdle. As I suppose the C100 to go the same way it will go below 6K the coming year. While the € lost some strength the Yen became harder so in Japan the cameras already are at the price level they were probably designed for: C300 around, virtually, 10K USD and the C100 around, virtually, 5K USD (taking the Yen/Dollar exchange rate of 2008 as a reference).
I'm sure with the yen close to 120 for a Dollar like it was in 2008 and not at 80 as it is today, the C300 would have been received totally different. Same for Europe. **** happens.
joe 1008
Veteran
Interesting. Excuse me that I'm asking that bluntly, but given the development of this thread I have to: Is this theory or your personal experience?
I think Canon is making a big mistake by not including 720 P in the C100. Canon may think they are protecting the C300, but in reality they are supporting Sony.
Canon C100 $6500
Sony FS 700 $8000
Atomos Ninja II $1000
Total $15,500
Not only is that package $500 cheaper than the $16,000 C300, it offers the flexibility of a two camera shoot and better slow-motion. In addition I like the fact that both of these cameras have built-in ND filters. This music video http://vimeo.com/45106747 demonstrates that the C300 and FS 700 cut well together so one might conclude that the C100 would also.
Canon C100 $6500
Sony FS 700 $8000
Atomos Ninja II $1000
Total $15,500
Not only is that package $500 cheaper than the $16,000 C300, it offers the flexibility of a two camera shoot and better slow-motion. In addition I like the fact that both of these cameras have built-in ND filters. This music video http://vimeo.com/45106747 demonstrates that the C300 and FS 700 cut well together so one might conclude that the C100 would also.
Last edited:
diegocervo
Well-known member
couldn't agree more Wendt
Both. I've missed the exposure couple of times in the past (or changed my mind about how the shot should have been exposed after it'd been captured). Hope that doesn't discredit me, does it? Actually, I wouldn't have thought of your question as blunt if you hadn't said it was. Let me ask you then (not bluntly) - what's your experience on this matter? Can you turn severely overexposed skin back into midtones and still get smooth gradation? Not sure why you implicitly suggest that the theory shouldn't be consistent with experience, either.
Ah, well there you go. I'll buy that as an explanation.