dustylense
Veteran
Yep, the Yen AND the dollar is super weak and that is why you see inflated prices from all Japanese companies. Just like your gas prices.
Canon EOS C100
- Thread starter Ted Ramasola
- Start date
Liam Hall
Veteran
dustylense
Veteran
I hope you're kidding. But if not, I'm talking about purchasing power as related to currency value.You can't blame Canon for your gas prices. Japan doesn't produce gas
indiawilds
Veteran
With this kind of discussion, I wonder whether camera manufacturers track this for feedback.
joe 1008
Veteran
Hi Trez, first of all, thank you for your answer. Wasn't intended to offend, my bluntness - my fault, after writing it I felt there was leeway for misunderstandings. It's just not my native language.
My experience with 8bit, mostly on a 5D showed me the limits many, many times. Banding über alles... On the other hand the raw stills of the camera always allow to recover at least one stop in both directions. So much about my 8bit & RAW experience. My question therefore referred explicitly (and bluntly) to the special allocation of the values in the Canon log mode you mentioned. So thanks a lot for sharing your first hand experience - and no offense.
philiplipetz
Veteran
I just ran into a C300 ESPN crew in Munich filming the Octoberfest on the biggest steadicam rig I have seen outside of a studio. They even had two EFX guys with them. We got to talking about using Canon Cinema EOS 8 bit files for special effects. They said that they were surprised that it seemed to work. Their only gripe was that Canon log did not seem to be as extreme "real" log as on some other cameras.
I do not think that they would have said the same thing about 8 bit from a 5D. The sensor differentiates color information so well that colors are as well separated as on many 10 bit 4:2:2 cameras that interpolate to derive color information,,
I do not think that they would have said the same thing about 8 bit from a 5D. The sensor differentiates color information so well that colors are as well separated as on many 10 bit 4:2:2 cameras that interpolate to derive color information,,
Surprised it seems to work? A lot of VFX work has been done on 8bit material for years and years, why would it suddenly not work?
8 bit vs 10 bit. 10 bit has more latitude. It shows up mostly in banding on the 8 bit material if pushed overboard. Usually VFX work doesn't actually do anything like that. We track material, replace elements in shots, add 3d-plates etc. None of these things DEMAND 10-bit origination. It doesn't help in tracking. We still need to work our asses off with 8 or 10 bit material. 4:2:2 helps in keying and color correction though.
Colorists love 10-bit material more. But for VFX it isn't "required".
What if Canon only sold the C500 instead of the C100 and C300? The Basic C500 would give you 1080p 24p,25p and 30p at 50Mb/s 4:2:2 to CF Cards for $8,999. All other functions would could be turned on with a software update to outright own or rent.
Unlock 720 50/60P for $1,000 (at that point you would have the C300 for $10,000)
Note: The following options will require an external recorder:
Unlock QFHD: 1920 x 1080 RGB 4:4:4 12-bit or 10-bit at up 60 fps and 2K: 12-bit RGB 4:4:4 at up to 60 fps for $2,000
Unlock QFHD: 1920 x 1080 YCrCb 4:2:2 10-bit at up to 120 fps and Unlock 2K: 10-bit YCrCb 4:2:2 at up to 120 fps $4,000
Unlock the following 4K Raw formats for $10,000
QFHD: 3840 x 2160 RGB RAW 10-bit at up to 60 fps
QFHD: 3840 x 1080 RGB Half RAW 10-bit at up to 120 fps
4K: 10-bit RGB RAW at up to 60 fps
4K: 10-bit RGB Half RAW at up to 120 fps
I am sure that my prices need tweaked, but you get the idea. If Canon followed this model it would sell more cameras and save money on the R&D, Retooling plants, Packaging, Promotions etc... for the C100 and C300 as well as keep customers. The cost savings should more than pay for the extra hardware that will be put in every camera even if some do not upgrade. As noted in another thread about the 1Dx and 1Dc we pay for what a camera does more than we pay for what it cost to produce. If I bought in at the ground level of the C500 and needed 120fps for slow motion I would upgrade rather than look at a new camera from Sony. This model would work great for me as I do not need 4k any time soon, but I could use 120p at 4:2:2 10-bit ($13,000 + recorder). Others need 4K now and could get into it for $19,000 instead of $26,000 + recorder. Still others will need it all at $26,000. If this model was followed, camera companies could then spend more time figuring out how I can get high frame rates and 4K on internal cards on the next camera upgrade. Then it will start all over again with 8K.
Unlock 720 50/60P for $1,000 (at that point you would have the C300 for $10,000)
Note: The following options will require an external recorder:
Unlock QFHD: 1920 x 1080 RGB 4:4:4 12-bit or 10-bit at up 60 fps and 2K: 12-bit RGB 4:4:4 at up to 60 fps for $2,000
Unlock QFHD: 1920 x 1080 YCrCb 4:2:2 10-bit at up to 120 fps and Unlock 2K: 10-bit YCrCb 4:2:2 at up to 120 fps $4,000
Unlock the following 4K Raw formats for $10,000
QFHD: 3840 x 2160 RGB RAW 10-bit at up to 60 fps
QFHD: 3840 x 1080 RGB Half RAW 10-bit at up to 120 fps
4K: 10-bit RGB RAW at up to 60 fps
4K: 10-bit RGB Half RAW at up to 120 fps
I am sure that my prices need tweaked, but you get the idea. If Canon followed this model it would sell more cameras and save money on the R&D, Retooling plants, Packaging, Promotions etc... for the C100 and C300 as well as keep customers. The cost savings should more than pay for the extra hardware that will be put in every camera even if some do not upgrade. As noted in another thread about the 1Dx and 1Dc we pay for what a camera does more than we pay for what it cost to produce. If I bought in at the ground level of the C500 and needed 120fps for slow motion I would upgrade rather than look at a new camera from Sony. This model would work great for me as I do not need 4k any time soon, but I could use 120p at 4:2:2 10-bit ($13,000 + recorder). Others need 4K now and could get into it for $19,000 instead of $26,000 + recorder. Still others will need it all at $26,000. If this model was followed, camera companies could then spend more time figuring out how I can get high frame rates and 4K on internal cards on the next camera upgrade. Then it will start all over again with 8K.
Last edited:
stefancolson
Well-known member
Even though both are 8-bit, the footage that the C300 puts out is in a different league than the 5D (or any DSLR), particularly when it comes to banding and negative grading artifacts. There is more latitude there than the numbers suggest, as well as significantly improved highlight retention and rolloff as compared to the DSLRs. This is definitely a case where practical results exceed what you'd expect based on specs. You're still limited in how far you can push the files, but I think in capable hands for most real-world scenarios it's a complete non-issue.
Fine you stated it. Now move on. For the record DVXuser isnt the internet. Its run by volunteer moderators. One of our 8 P's is no postulating.
I have no idea how the C100 will perform. Have you used one? I havent.
I can tell you from months of experience day in day out shooting on a C300. The 8 v 10 bit argument is totally worthless. Ive shot probably 90 full days total on a C300 and got one from the first shipped units.
I've never had a bad frame from the C300 and theres been occasion where Ive had to shoot in crap conditions.
Enough of that camera though - this is a C100 thread. I would like to see more footage - not vimeo or youtube clips however.
dustylense
Veteran
I'm gonna go with Noel Evan's sentiment here. The 8 bit codec on the C300 is not your standard 8bits. And if you have any investigative skills you will take a look at Noel's work. It's top notch. With the C100, you get the best of both worlds here. Use the compressed internal codec for projects that it will play nice with. OR, attach an external recorder and get a 422 8bit out. NOW and HOPEFULLY, the external 422 out will be the same as the lovely Canon XF codec on the C300 were that 8bit argument just seems silly.
philiplipetz
Veteran
Sony crippled the output from the FS100 so that it does not compare to output for the F3 with whom it shares a sensor, will Canon make the same mistake? This is the ccritical Unanswered issue.
It looks like Sony grafted the back end of the XA10 onto the C300 to make the C100 down to same small size sensor. Will this affect the output quality? BTW Philip Bloom was full of praise for the XA10, saying that for normal work he could not see any great difference from the XF100 image, a camera with the same sensor and the same codec as the C100.
It looks like Sony grafted the back end of the XA10 onto the C300 to make the C100 down to same small size sensor. Will this affect the output quality? BTW Philip Bloom was full of praise for the XA10, saying that for normal work he could not see any great difference from the XF100 image, a camera with the same sensor and the same codec as the C100.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Thanks to C-Log and the fantastic low light sensitivity of the C300, I actually use less fill lighting when shooting documentary.
Liam Hall
Veteran
Hmm...
With respect, I'd call that postulating.
I've shot a lot with the C300 too. I really like the image and simple workflow, but I'd still prefer 10bit colour over 8 bit, every time. That said, this thread is about the C100 and I'm sure the colour rendition from it will be more than good enough for 99% of it's target users.
I'm 15 years in the broadcast TV at post-production (last six years on AvidMC and on Avid DS now) and I know these 8bit vs 10bit limits at postproduction quite well. My friend is working on DaVinci and Baselight, I can see the resulting quality of many footages with a very different ways of shooting.
And I can't tell that the 8 v 10 bit argument is totally worthless at this level of processing.
Yes, I return to the C100, looks very good. I hope that the EFV will be fine.
Sorry - I misunderstood you, indeed. That's because of the word 'bluntly'
No offense at all, either. Like I said, I wouldn't have thought of your post as blunt if you hadn't explicitly used that word. English is not my native language, either, so there's a lot of room for misunderstandings
joe 1008
Veteran
Hi Trez :dankk2:
I'm quite sur that Noel would agree with you about the limitations of 8 bit processing. He refers in his post to the smarter implementation of an 8 bit codec by Canon by the higher allocation of information to critical tonal areas. As here was stated from various people who did work with the C300 that trick really seems to work.
Referring to the C100 I deeply hope that trick will work with its AVCHD 4:2:0 codec, too. Not to mention the HDMI-out.
I'm quite sur that Noel would agree with you about the limitations of 8 bit processing. He refers in his post to the smarter implementation of an 8 bit codec by Canon by the higher allocation of information to critical tonal areas. As here was stated from various people who did work with the C300 that trick really seems to work.
Referring to the C100 I deeply hope that trick will work with its AVCHD 4:2:0 codec, too. Not to mention the HDMI-out.
John Andersson
Well-known member
I fear the EVF on the C100 will be useless and the LCD not much better. I like the more integrated XLR interface but the cable sticking out sideways to me is just poor designed. Same thing on the C300 and I would prefer to do without any of these cables. I'd rather use the SDI/HDMI output into a monitor on either camera.
Jim Martin
DVXuser Sponsor
The BP-955 (included) runs the C300 3-4 hrs so on the C100 should be at least that....the BP-970 or 975 run the C300 6+ hrs so, again, should be that or more on the C100.....
Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
Jim Martin
Filmtools.com