Canon EOS C300 NEW pricing!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
maarek said:
An All-I codec with a huge bitrate will automatically be very much better and more robust than the standard h.264 wrapper they are using now. There is no way that they are even on the same page. Some employee saying that it will be easier to edit does not discount that fact.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying, and to a degree I think you're right. The way it was explained to me, by Canon reps, was like this: the difference is akin to AVCHD vs MJPEG. The All-I codec is still limited by the sensor properties, pixel interpolation and downscaling - that information is just taken through less a less efficient compression method and final recorded clips of the two codecs will probably not look terribly different without extreme pixel-peeping.

I would expect the All-I codec to be far more edit friendly and also may hold up to grading and effects a little better. But only testing will tell us for sure.
 
GH2user said:
Have you worked with the 175mb/s GH2 INTRA codec yet? It's like RAW with 4:2:0 sampling. It holds up 10x's better than the XF codec, even with the 4:2:2 color space. (yes, I have worked with it).
Click to expand...

I have a GH2, and I love it. The hack has certainly improved many of it's very few shortcomings, and I shoot with it all the time. I also own and XF300. However, judging from my own experience, you're wrong. Even with the hack, the GH2 codec falls short of what I can do with Canon XF footage. The GH2 gives me far more banding across gradients and the shadow detail, while improved with the hack, doesn't match what I can pull out of the XF300. And, of course, the GH2 can't compete on color sub-sampling.

Look, I own both. I love them both. They both have their place in my production workflow. But even hacked, the GH2 implementation isn't as strong as Canon XF. If you're having a different experience between the two codecs, I'd love to see your examples. It may have to wait until tomorrow when I can do a proper side by side, but I know that I can show you some that will prove my point.
 
Last edited:
BobbyMurcerFan said:
I saw the images and I have to tell you that Canon's claims of "organic noise" is a load of b.s., IMHO.
Click to expand...

I whole-heartedly disagree, and I'm not the only one:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011/11/09/canon-c300-organic-noise/

But don't take mine, or Vincent's, word for it. Anybody who's interested can download an MXF file from the C300, shot at 16,000 iso, and evaluate the noise profile yourself:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-frame-grabs-amp-hj-link-to-download-MXF-file

I'm currently in the editing process of a feature I directed last summer, shot on Red MX, and the fixed pattern noise in the shadows is absolutely killing me. If I never have to shoot RED again, especially for night exteriors, it will be too soon.
 
On a side note, I think it's kind of hilarious that this thread is almost a direct mirror of the one that got shut down a week or so ago. Let's try to keep this civilized, and that goes for me, too.
 
As an avid RED user, I agree. You can get some decent 1080/2K out of it in the lowlit night situation, but it is not the cleaner. You definitely need to use the denies slider.

I wager that the C300 will produce a cleaner image than scarlet under most circumstances. But both will be great.
 
I can tell you that I went to the Canon event and watched some of the films* in the big theatre.

And I've been to Red Studios and watched the Epic 700 Reel. There is absolutely no comparison at all.

Here is a link the 700 Reel. Even on Vimeo, it's very impressive. http://vimeo.com/25424362

As for your experience with the One MX, it sounds like it might have been too underexposed. But keep in mind that the Epic is significantly more powerful and advanced camera than the Red One is.


*P.S. I should note that "Sword" looked particularly bad. And that I only saw a few shots of "Mobius" but they looked quite good but hard to judge b/c there was a lot of intentional blowing out of the image (I'm talking about the INT airplane shot). So Vincent Laforet may well know a lot more about how to use the C300 than did the other filmmakers.
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
Have you ever shot with the XF300? I have the XF105 and I will tell you that I love the noise/grain. It's tight and uniform. Now stick that on a s35 sensor and BAM! Then, watch it on your broadcast monitor or HDTV and BAM, it's gone. Looks great....
Click to expand...

I have and I like the XF very much. But it's not an Epic.


P.S. Film grain is neither tight nor uniform.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
P.S. Film grain is neither tight nor uniform.
Click to expand...

Film grain is actually surprisingly ugly. People have become used to it. Just finished mastering a commercial shot on 35mm film and it looked quite grainy compared to anything we've done with alexa or red. Shooting on 35mm film is a certain look, a style. It was transferred 2k and it also looked quite soft compared to modern digital cameras at 1080p. It had to be sharpened somewhat afterwards which didn't help the grain.
 
It's amazing how few people realize a modern motion picture post processing includes a degrain/denoise step.
 
BobbyMurcerFan said:
I have and I like the XF very much. But it's not an Epic.


P.S. Film grain is neither tight nor uniform.
Click to expand...

Well, yeah... the XF105 is a $4000.00 dollar camera, the XF300 is a $6500.00 camera and the Epic is $39,500.00 for the "Brain" only.

As for film grain, yeah, "Tight and uniform" is not how I would describe it either (T-Grain technology has made it a tad bit more pleasing IMHO), but I have to say the grain/noise that is evident in the C300 footage thus posted is dang near a quantum leap beyond the horrible grain/noise of the Canon HD-DSLRs.
 
for $13,000 or less I'd seriously consider this. had a chance to watch in full the mobius by vincent laffert and must say the movement is the most filmic looking to me out of all the dslrs and the new sony f3. dynamic range looks really good as well.
 
reem12 said:
for $13,000 or less I'd seriously consider this. had a chance to watch in full the mobius by vincent laffert and must say the movement is the most filmic looking to me out of all the dslrs and the new sony f3. dynamic range looks really good as well.
Click to expand...

Seconded.
 
reem12 said:
for $13,000 or less I'd seriously consider this. had a chance to watch in full the mobius by vincent laffert and must say the movement is the most filmic looking to me out of all the dslrs and the new sony f3. dynamic range looks really good as well.
Click to expand...

What gets me about the C300 is the daylight exteriors, which, to me, has been the Achilles Heel for digital video . "Mobius" is one example, but to me, the shots that got me are then one ones at the end of the "Blade Runner" take off. Holy sh*t, that stuff looked GREAT! It may be great in low light, but a digital camera that can perform like that with daylight exteriors is something special, IMHO. I don't think that the spec sheet nay sayers really understand what this camera MIGHT mean for the advancement of digital cinema. Sure, it is only 8 bit and it ain't RAW... but look at the footage!
 
Kholi said:
It's amazing how few people realize a modern motion picture post processing includes a degrain/denoise step.
Click to expand...
:)
It's amazing how few people realize a modern motion picture relies on incredibly talented people and that anything in the process other then that is just a tool. Spec's never made a movie.....
 
Yeah I'm really blown away at how this cam handled exterior as well. I know they had some heavy weights at the helm but this had no digital feel to it whatsoever. 8 bit and all It was extremely clean and banding free. It had tons of detail but not the harsh over edge enhanced type of detail I'm seeing from some dslrs. It was just pleasing to the eye on so many levels. I'm not going to lie and say I wouldn't love to be able to call on this same imagery in a 4k wrapper, but at a sub $13,000 pricing I wouldn't feel slighted in the least bit.
 
Last edited:
ddp said:
:)
It's amazing how few people realize a modern motion picture relies on incredibly talented people and that anything in the process other then that is just a tool. Spec's never made a movie.....
Click to expand...

how true... how true...

the first dealer down the street put the c300 on his website today for 15500€ incl. vat.
that`s the equivalent of about 10 5d mkII bodys!! or a couple more gh2s...
or an almost complete 5d outfit including some nice lenses, follow focus, monitor, etc.. even a head and tripod.

if the story, acting, and directing are done right, i honestly don`t see all the artifacts or lack of latitude, i see the movie.
you start to see all of this only when you get bored and your mind is not in the story but has time to go to the specs :-)

the canon folks are completely out of their mind with this price.
pros will buy a decent camera, and rental houses anyways.
the guys at my rental house don`t even consider buying a c300, they`re sitting on f3s already, witch are sitting on the shelves all the time.
people who rent for a production go directly for a red or an alexa.
with all the stuff you have to rent for a decent production (lenses, matteboxes, filters, etc.. aks..) the camera body only is a part of the actual cost.
and if so, why not go for something that shoots raw and does higher framerates etc right away...

red did a great job when they cut the price for a "film style camera" by factor 10 (considering that an Arricam, body only, was over 150000$)
now canon gives you a blown up 5d at 10 times the price... insane...
 
I have this camera on pre-order and see it as a tool I can put to work right out of the box with my existing equipment but I also realize it does have a few limitations if compared how I use my AF100. I'm still not sure how to look at the pricing.

If I go for the C300 the upside is I can streamline my equipment and workflow further. I bet I don't need an external recorder and I just might be good with the LCD and EVF (I'll keep my Zacuto EVF). No 1080p50 is really the one feature I do miss. On the other hand because the sensor readout is so pristine it could be 720p50 will look as good as 1080p50 from the AF100.
 
If Canon is clever, they will put the C300 at a street price around 10000$ and they will make it a success and sell then a lot. If they don't well, they will only sell a few considering his current limitation, high price and other camera options... Situation is pretty clear and simple to me, now it's up to Canon to chose... They have enought solid financial support to go the first road, and i hope they will. If they do, i will buy a c300...

Please Canon listen and everyone who think the same as me express here his complain about the original 20000$ price...

vincent*


__________________________________________________________

Vincent Thomas
Artist for Film / Photograph & Creative Director
http://www.stranger-than-paradise.book.fr/
__________________________________________________________
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top