If this was a 5D Mark III you'd have photographers rioting in the streets outside of Canon HQ with torches and pitchforks!
2MP stills, limited electronic communication with EOS lenses. This IS NOT a stills camera.
Canon EOS c300
- Thread starter Chaos123x
- Start date
If this was a 5D Mark III you'd have photographers rioting in the streets outside of Canon HQ with torches and pitchforks!
2MP stills, limited electronic communication with EOS lenses. This IS NOT a stills camera.
Erich Ocean
Active member
Are you talking about the C300? Because the C300 has two balanced XLR inputs with phantom power on the body and records 16-bit 48Khz linear PCM audio in either auto or manual mode. And it has a headphone jack.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I really can't help but think that this camera is going to be a hit for Canon. I know we can nit pick specs on it, but if the image quality is really as good as the folks pitching it now are saying, I think that it will be used quit a bit in the near future. I can see a lot of TV productions, indie fictional narratives and especially documentaries embracing the camera. I bet there is a a whole "Cocktail Party Circuit" of folks in LA, or where ever, that have been hearing about the success of the Canon DLRs for video, but just couldn't bring themselves to use the low end cameras, that are going to snap these cameras up. I believe the Canon Ace In The Hole for the camera is the opening of the big LA service center, which shows their commitment to the support of the camera. Of course, I would be willing to bet that they are going to set up their own "Cocktail Party Circuit" of marketing for the camera out of that center and we are going to see some high profile filmmakers using this camera in the near future. While most of the folks here agree that the stated MSRP of the camera is not appropriate, I would not be surprised if it really helps them to sell them to a target market that is comfortable with that price. I am definitely not a member of that target market, but I do understand that it exists, across a wide spectrum of products, including digital video cameras. You know.... "It has to be good... Look at what it cost".
Of course, I agree with a lot of folks here that the Scarlett X announcement, in pure camera specs, blows Canon out of the water, but paper specs are just one part of the picture. The fully kitted out Canons and Scarlett X are really equivalent in price, so the camera costs are not, IMHO, going to be the deciding factor. I believe that it is the possible hidden costs, especially in data management tools needed, of the Scarlett, along with the real question of whether the need for 4K has really been sold to the production community, is going to weigh heavy against the Scarlett X. There also seems to be somewhat of a question about the reliability of the RED Epic, from anecdotal reports and internet postings, that may hamper the adaptation of the Red Scarlett. The ability of the RED company to deliver high quality, high volume (Relatively) cameras, which is going to be required for the Scarlett X, is still an unknown quantity. ANY delay, or reports of quality issues from the Scarlett X is going to be very detrimental for them. Canon, on the other hand, has been in the high volume, high quality reliability business for a very long time.
So, the folks that post here are almost universally in agreement that the Canon is overpriced, and that they would not buy it. However, if you live in a production center like LA, and work as a camera assistant or DIT, I would definitely try to bone up on the Canon C300 series cameras as I think you are going to be seeing them used more and more after they are released.
Of course, I agree with a lot of folks here that the Scarlett X announcement, in pure camera specs, blows Canon out of the water, but paper specs are just one part of the picture. The fully kitted out Canons and Scarlett X are really equivalent in price, so the camera costs are not, IMHO, going to be the deciding factor. I believe that it is the possible hidden costs, especially in data management tools needed, of the Scarlett, along with the real question of whether the need for 4K has really been sold to the production community, is going to weigh heavy against the Scarlett X. There also seems to be somewhat of a question about the reliability of the RED Epic, from anecdotal reports and internet postings, that may hamper the adaptation of the Red Scarlett. The ability of the RED company to deliver high quality, high volume (Relatively) cameras, which is going to be required for the Scarlett X, is still an unknown quantity. ANY delay, or reports of quality issues from the Scarlett X is going to be very detrimental for them. Canon, on the other hand, has been in the high volume, high quality reliability business for a very long time.
So, the folks that post here are almost universally in agreement that the Canon is overpriced, and that they would not buy it. However, if you live in a production center like LA, and work as a camera assistant or DIT, I would definitely try to bone up on the Canon C300 series cameras as I think you are going to be seeing them used more and more after they are released.
Filippo Chiesa
Well-known member
Right - you and I know that 8bit for LOG feels... wrong. My first thought was WTF.
However, then I thought about it some more... Log is an inherently better distribution of values. For example, it is often agreed that 10 bit log equals or beats 12 bit linear. 8 bit log beats 8 bit non-log - so we're already a little bit ahead.
Also, how much real info did we have in 10-bit log?
Below 95 was "very very black".
Above 685 is reserved for specular highlights. Often there was detail in the 685-900 range, but rarely would we need to use all of the bit values there. Most of the time you'd end up with all of those pixels just representing some highlight data that formed the nice rolloff - eg represented as RGB values 245-255 when you made your trailer for the web
So, the key part was really that 95-685 area. Eg where the main image lives. And how many tone values do you have there? 685-95 = 590. Which is only 57% of the 0-1023 range.
Now with the C300, presumably you don't waste 10% of your tonal capture range for superblack. You don't need that leeway because you can see if stuff is clipping on the monitor. Unlike film, where you didn't see a damn thing until you got your dailies.
Similarly, you don't need 30% of your image to capture highlight detail. You can take that existing highlight detail and compress it with a slight knee. Not clip. Just compress - you don't need unnecessary bits spent there since you're probably going to be doing a knee there at some point. We don't need to know that the sun is brighter than the highlight on the aluminum cup.
So let's say at the end of it you are left with black values in the 0-24 range, tonal values from 25-224 or so for real detail, and tonal values from 225-255 for the extreme specular highlight info.
So you are spending 78% of your 0-255 budget on pixel values that are crucial to have smooth tones, whereas with traditional Log workflow, you're only spending 57% of your budget on those pixel values.
So the difference from 8-bit log shot well on Canon C300 to traditional 10-bit log is not really 256 vs 1024.
It could be more like "200 values" vs "590 values".
This is a pain of course. I am assuming here that you shoot in the log gamma mode, but leave the "cinema override" mode turned off so that you still have access to ISO, black level, knee controls at the same time as log recording... whereas if you could record true 10-bit you wouldn't have to worry so much.
Just thinking things through... what do you think?
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Bruce, probably you're right but everything, IMHO, depends how good is the Log you're using.
The Sony S-Log, as you know, it's a 10 bit and it works great; with the new upcoming firmware it will be greater.
From Abel Cine:
"...Perhaps the most significant addition of all is Exposure Index S-Log mode. You will still need the S-Log option installed to make this work, but if you already have the S-Log option on, this will be enabled right away. The Exposure Index mode works differently than the standard S-Log mode – it sets the camera at an optimal ISO (800) and maximizes the sensor output, giving a full extra stop of exposure. Then when the gain switch is adjusted, instead of adding gain it adjusts the exposure index. A practical explanation of this is that when gain is increased the camera will push up the exposure values, and when it is decreased it will pull down those values. Because the ISO is set to get the most out of the sensor, the exposure index change works more like an adjustment in post. The extra stop in exposure is big news though, and I can’t wait to try it out".
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Nope.
The XLR inputs are on the separate monitor module. If you do not use that, then you would have to use the 1/8" jack built into the body. There is also no mic built in. It's all on the Canon website.
Erich Ocean
Active member
I consider the monitor part of the camera, didn't know we were being pedantic.
Your post made it sound like it didn't have XLR inputs AT ALL, no that it didn't have inputs where you'd like them...
Last edited:
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I consider the monitor part of the camera, didn't know we were being pedantic.
Your post made it sound like it didn't have XLR inputs AT ALL, no that it didn't have inputs where you'd like them...
But it's not part of the camera body, and if someone were considering weight and size of the monitor, or, thinking of using a different monitor onboard, then it would be important to know that you needed to have that piece attached to get XLR and probably Phantom power.
And where did I say it didn't have sound at all, you have me confused with 8string.
You said the XLR was on the body and I was just adding the correct information, because they aren't. I looked this up myself because I was confused at first when others were talking about it.Which is why I mentioned the microphone not built in as well which I find annoying on a few cameras (like my FS100). If I am shooting separate sound, then I like to have just a reference track on the camera for aligning. Now I have to add the big Sony mic that came with it when that is overkill for what I need instead of having a small built in mic like the AF100 has.
For people using the C300, they might want to be aware of that as well.
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
I consider the monitor part of the camera, didn't know we were being pedantic.
Your post made it sound like it didn't have XLR inputs AT ALL, no that it didn't have inputs where you'd like them...
It's not part of the camera if it isn't permanently attached.
The XLR inputs should be an integrated part of the camera, not an add-on.
Erich Ocean
Active member
I can see why people want that. Don't buy a Scarlet or Epic, it's only got an 1/8" jack on the body, too (and no built-in mic, which the C300 and every other camera should have).
That would have made the camera body bigger. They made a design choice to keep the body small. It's not wrong. It's just different. RED made the same choice.
The monitor/XLR unit is included with the camera, by the way.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I'm not saying it is right or wrong, because if the choice was make the C300 bigger, I think I'd go with what they did. The only change I would make is adding in a dedicated mic like you find on a DSLR just for reference if you need reference audio but don't want to attach a microphone to the unit that takes up more space, more weight, and a dangling cable. (And by like DSLR, I mean with manual control though, not AGC'd)
This is not exactly the case with the Scarlet-X if it's still like it was a bit ago when I was researching it. They had developed a tiny mic that attaches to the 1/8 port that was REALLY small. It was pretty cool. I would be fine with that as an option as well, and it actually something I've been designing for the FS100 too (something like it, a little bigger because I need to get the mic more forward with the XLR placement on the FS100). But I don't think the C300 would really work well with that from where the 1/8 placement is.
aguia
Active member
Since you seem to work for Canon (or something like that) and have all the info on this unit; how does the monitor/xlr audio-in unit interface with the camera body? It isn't clear from the images at the Canon site, I can see a couple of cables that I assume are audio 1 & 2, are those unbalanced RCA connectors on the ends? I'm sure there are a few of us here that remember the old XL1 audio-in box and I'd find it a little hard to believe Canon went down that road again.
cowpunk52
Veteran
Those cables are a proprietary connection that carry a video signal to the monitor and the audio signal from the xlr. Canon has stated that they will release specs of the connection for third party development, and the camera may ship with longer cables for off camera mounting as well.
Erich Ocean
Active member
Great article on the C300 here http://www.fdtimes.com/news/canon/canon-c300/
Favorite quote:
It looks like this thing will be $14-16K street. I still predict it'll be huge with indie filmmakers, and HUGE as a rental item on regular (paid) narrative productions.
If this camera had been around when Like Crazy was shot, this is what they would have used.
Favorite quote:
It looks like this thing will be $14-16K street. I still predict it'll be huge with indie filmmakers, and HUGE as a rental item on regular (paid) narrative productions.
If this camera had been around when Like Crazy was shot, this is what they would have used.
I'm disappointed that they didn't release anything in the AF100/FS100 price/feature range. This C300 is just too expensive for what you get. For $19000 you can get a F3 with S-Log and 3 prime lenses from B&H.
Too expensive, too late...I predict it will not sell and/or there will be a massive price drop shortly after release.
Too expensive, too late...I predict it will not sell and/or there will be a massive price drop shortly after release.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I definitely understand the comments about low light, as we shoot with smaller lights all the time with the FS100, but I don't necessarily agree with the comments about the big silks during the day. For two reasons. One, there is an aesthetic to the light levels in the scene. You want to bring some things up and some things down so that the proper parts of the scene are lit that you want. A camera isn't going to fix that. Which brings me to point two, and that is the C300 is 12 stops. While I think this is good, it is certainly not the type of freedom range you are going to ge on an Alexa and its dynamic range (or the epic) or film.
I say this because I drove past the filming of a new Colin Firth film in downtown Raleigh yesterday, and what did I see? HUGE silks setup AND an Alexa.
With bright sun and 12dB of range, you are still going to want the tools to make the light more appealing.
J Davis
Veteran
14k was supposed to be the price, the $20k announcement came as a surprise to the people I spoke to.
Maybe it was a last minute RED herring
love that idiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Maybe it was a last minute RED herring
love that idiom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Sam isn't saying you won't need silks on daylight exteriors with the C300. Those scenes are troublesome no matter what camera you use, even film. He just says it might cheaper (and maybe less trouble) to do night exteriors now with the C300 because the high sensitivity allows the magnitude of light to be less. Of course, the quality of light still needs to be high so standard lighting practices still apply.