Canon's 4K Cinema EOS Official Announcement & Latest Info-NAB 2012

Barry_Green said:
Regarding the history of the C300 price announcement...

In the pre-announcements there was no indication of pricing at all. As the press event started, DVInfo went live with their article, and that article said "priced at about $16,000". People here flipped out, saying "no way will it be $16k" etc., while Canon was still holding their event and it was all still going on. People said "that $16k is fake, Canon didn't say $16k, etc". Then, at the very end of the big November 3rd Hollywood event, Canon said "Price: $20k".

There was much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. And when the price was announced at $20k, DVInfo updated their article to reflect the official announcement of the Canon event.

Then, a couple of months later in January, they promised an announcement of price and shipping date. When that announcement came, it was $16k, which is where it remains today.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up. And thats what i remembered thiugh nit as clear as barry explained it
 
Emanuel said:
Yes and no. Take a look on both documents:

1st) http://www.canon.com/news/2011/nov04e03.html

« Pricing and availability

The Canon EOS C300 (EF mount) digital video camcorder is scheduled to be available in late January 2012 in select regions. The Canon EOS C300 PL (PL mount) digital video camcorder is scheduled to be available in late March 2012 in select regions. Please contact an authorized dealer for detailed pricing and availability information in your region. »

2nd) http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024803cf0a9

« Pricing and availability

The Canon EOS C300 (EF mount) digital cinema camera is scheduled to be available in late January 2012 for an estimated list price of $20,000. The Canon EOS C300 PL (PL mount) digital cinema camera is scheduled to be available in late March 2012 for an estimated list price of $20,000. »
Click to expand...

That's interesting. Makes me think Canon are really trying to push the EF as a mount for pro cinema use as the same delay is on the PL mount versions of their cine lenses and the EF ones are available sooner. Makes sense as if you buy into the EF mount cine lenses you are committed to canon.

I like the idea of the C500 and I expect the decision between EF or PL would be a hard, critical and much considered choice.
 
EndCredits said:
That's interesting. Makes me think Canon are really trying to push the EF as a mount for pro cinema use as the same delay is on the PL mount versions of their cine lenses and the EF ones are available sooner. Makes sense as if you buy into the EF mount cine lenses you are committed to canon.

I like the idea of the C500 and I expect the decision between EF or PL would be a hard, critical and much considered choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah on the C500, the decision on PL vs EF is a big one. However for rental I bet the PL will fly out the door more. I would take the PL personally.

Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
The 1DC & the C500's footage looked great with the 4K projection....I saw the 1DC stuff 2 weeks later in Hollywood at the LA Film School's 4K theater.....still looked great. On Thursday I'll see the 500's film at the same place. The one thing I noticed so far is, aside from the slo-mo on the 500, I didn't see a very big difference from that and the C300 footage we saw at Paramount in November. I think there is something to be said about the "law of diminishing returns"....I also think there is a bit of my sword is bigger/better than yours when it comes to cameras these days with many, especially on blogs like this, categorically claiming that their camera is better than others. Some like to claim that specs are everything and no amount of real world use will change that view. Others use specs as a starting point in finding out what a certain camera is really all about.....Back to the 1DC, I didn't "get" the camera at first...I feel that when the DSLRs were the only option out there, one would put up with the work-arounds & jerry-rigging that you had to do to make it function as a viable tool. Once the big chip video cameras came out (AF100, F3, C300, etc), why bother with that hassle & expense (apply that to the new camera). When I saw the behind the scenes on the 1DC & saw Shane climb into the back of the Prius, I got it....even though the camera is just a little bit smaller the the C300, he could still get into areas that only a DSLR could...watch the behind the scenes on Canon Cinema EOS site....As for the footage, again it looked great.

Jim Martin
Filmtools.com
 
Agreed, good stuff. Diminishing returns is definitely something I understand. The Avengers was shot on ALEXA and in IMAX it looked amazing. Native 4K for shooting isn't everything. The benefits of projecting in 4K however are valid and great. Maybe that sounds goofy, but that's what I see.

All these cameras have valid uses and strong points and if handled well will look awesome on a theater screen.
 
KyleProhaska said:
Agreed, good stuff. Diminishing returns is definitely something I understand. The Avengers was shot on ALEXA and in IMAX it looked amazing. Native 4K for shooting isn't everything. The benefits of projecting in 4K however are valid and great. Maybe that sounds goofy, but that's what I see.

All these cameras have valid uses and strong points and if handled well will look awesome on a theater screen.
Click to expand...
4K is a standard, actually, too much important to be left outside as secondary thought because it is future proof, even if more than a good content there's no other time bullet ;-)


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1807950/technical
 
I didn't say it wasn't a standard, but I'm willing to bet 2.5K ALEXA blown up to 4K looks really similar to 35mm scanned at 4K. ALEXA at 4K would be wonderful too though! All I'm saying is pixel count isn't everything.
 
KyleProhaska said:
I didn't say it wasn't a standard, but I'm willing to bet 2.5K ALEXA blown up to 4K looks really similar to 35mm scanned at 4K. ALEXA at 4K would be wonderful too though! All I'm saying is pixel count isn't everything.
Click to expand...
So the Blackmagic Design camera's 2.4K footage should look pretty good, too. I see it as a nearly perfect "B" camera to the Alexa, and a competent "A" camera in its own right.
 
That's probably taking it a little far since the camera isn't released and battle-tested yet. The ALEXA has it's own mini-Bcam already.

Sorry for derailing the thread a little. Looking forward to Canon's camera future, even if I can't afford it, lol.
 
It wouldn't be a perfect b camera because it is a DSLR......the C300 is quickly becoming the chosen b camera for the Alexa.....I know many of the 1-hour shows here in town have been evaluating the camera and I have sold to "Luck" (Alexa - but they kinda ran out of luck) and NCIS-LA (Alexa) so far.....about 6 other Alexa 1-hour shows are "circling" around the C300......and its a well functioning video camera, not a DSLR.

JIm Martin
Filmtools.com
 
Jim Martin said:
It wouldn't be a perfect b camera because it is a DSLR......the C300 is quickly becoming the chosen b camera for the Alexa.....I know many of the 1-hour shows here in town have been evaluating the camera and I have sold to "Luck" (Alexa - but they kinda ran out of luck) and NCIS-LA (Alexa) so far.....about 6 other Alexa 1-hour shows are "circling" around the C300......and its a well functioning video camera, not a DSLR.

JIm Martin
Filmtools.com
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I find that quite hard to believe any real TV series would even look at a C300 for actual use on a "B" camera. Thats just not true. Maybe a "D" or "E" camera for a super multi shot setup, but NEVER a "B" camera. Sorry but B camera is usually more important than the A cam on a tv series shoot. "B" is usually the CU and "A" is the wide/mid. If a TV production is shooting on ALEXA Im positive they are going to match both of those cameras up with each other, a pair of alexas cost next to nothing to rent for a TV production, they will not be pinching their pennies on a camera system.

I do say that DSLR's are just a joke for actual use professionally in the video world, but I also think the C300 would be a joke as well. You're just not going to get the same quality and robustness out of a C300/500 that you'd get out of an Alexa. There's so much more processing to an Alexa than just 2K image and s35mm sensor. It tooks YEARS to develop that camera to please DP's who didnt want to move away from film. C300... well its a DSLR with a slightly larger body. Thats about it.

I would say though people like to talk about lower end cameras making their way up to being on a real TV shoot... its VERY rare, and most of the time the real cameras put the lesser to shame instantly ('House' and its jello cam special) Until its a global shutter and handling 12bit 4:4:4, its not going to look the same.
 
Agreed. Alexa is a hell of a camera!
'nuff said when we see the outcome produced there.

But...

The point is: do not think the producers are interested to pay more when can have something similar for much less.
Who rules the boat after all? ;)

That's the whole point, much hard to fit inside the head of a lot of people of imaging department.
Especially when they think they are the most important part of the cake : ) Part. Got it? :-)
 
FilmDude said:
I'm sorry but I find that quite hard to believe any real TV series would even look at a C300 for actual use on a "B" camera. Thats just not true. Maybe a "D" or "E" camera for a super multi shot setup, but NEVER a "B" camera. Sorry but B camera is usually more important than the A cam on a tv series shoot. "B" is usually the CU and "A" is the wide/mid. If a TV production is shooting on ALEXA Im positive they are going to match both of those cameras up with each other, a pair of alexas cost next to nothing to rent for a TV production, they will not be pinching their pennies on a camera system.

I do say that DSLR's are just a joke for actual use professionally in the video world, but I also think the C300 would be a joke as well. You're just not going to get the same quality and robustness out of a C300/500 that you'd get out of an Alexa. There's so much more processing to an Alexa than just 2K image and s35mm sensor. It tooks YEARS to develop that camera to please DP's who didnt want to move away from film. C300... well its a DSLR with a slightly larger body. Thats about it.

I would say though people like to talk about lower end cameras making their way up to being on a real TV shoot... its VERY rare, and most of the time the real cameras put the lesser to shame instantly ('House' and its jello cam special) Until its a global shutter and handling 12bit 4:4:4, its not going to look the same.
Click to expand...

the c500 is actually 12 bit 4:4:4 out in hd and 2k. I mean if you are going to bash atleast do it for the right reason. It still has rolling shutter though.
 
Emanuel said:
The point is: do not think the producers are interested to pay more when can have something similar for much less.
Who rules the boat after all? ;)
Click to expand...

My point is the camera rental costs are hardly anything, thats my point. The cost for 2 Alexa's fully kitted out for the shoot is much less than most of the rest of the equipment needed. Most of the time the cameras come with the lease, or even production company. The cameras are a VERY small part of the TV show budget.

My point is they will not sacrifice even a small amount of quality for a prosumer camera when it already costs so little for the Alexa package they have. You wanna talk about where they like to cut costs? Look at lighting rigs, now those are where a lot of the money is spent, lighting, power, HVAC, and talent costs, studio time, parking fees, ect. Those are the costs that they try to bundle and cut down on. The cameras, are never really touched. Neither is sound. The golden rule for producers is never f*ck with the sound or image.

The millions of dollars spent on the series when shooting comes no where near being hurt by the difference in prices of Alexa vs. C300. So theres no point. Plus unless a DP REALLY pushes for it, theres a lot of red tape to cut through just to change a camera system for episodic tv. Producers, networks, line producers, directors, visual supervisors, makeup, wordrobe, lighting, THEY ALLL are affected by a camera change, and it would actually cost a lot of money to test, and make sure the standards are met to replace an Alexa, just like they did when they replaced film... So there is no cost benefit. If anything it would cost more money for that season to change camera packages to please the client (the network/studio).

I'm sorry to be the big pain here, but in the real industry, theres no place for prosumer cameras when they are already using some of the best gear and getting it for next to nothing. They wont save money by renting C300's or any other camera bodies. They save money by getting monthly lease deals on Alexa packages, or simply just buy the damn cameras and write them off as a production expense and then keep them for later productions or sell them once they become obsolete.
 
Teodor Miljevic said:
the c500 is actually 12 bit 4:4:4 out in hd and 2k. I mean if you are going to bash atleast do it for the right reason. It still has rolling shutter though.
Click to expand...

The C500 doesn't exist, and when/if it does, its still the same argument, no point in going down in quality. it will actually cost more money for a tv show to go down in quality, because their workflows are already established.
 
I've worked on a few productions that have incorporated and currently use the C300 in B and sometimes A camera setups. And sure, as productions have defined their workflow, they will be less likely to change. But new productions are starting all the time that look to incorporate the newer technologies. DSLR's and now F3's and C300's are springing up all over television productions, and very likely soon C500's and 1D-C's will too. No sense in trying to convince people it's not happening.
 
The BBC tariffs page starts at "up to £375K per hour" for the cheapest shows. Assuming a week's shooting schedule for an hour (and I believe that many are done in a couple of days), an Alexa package will be somewhere around £5K, and a C300 will be getting on for £1K. The difference in cost will be around 1% of the budget for a single camera set-up, 2% if you want a pair.

I find myself in agreement with FilmDude. It's not going to materially affect the cost to go for an Alexa over a (potentially) less capable camera. On a big budget flick like it's going to be a no brainer.

It'll be interesting to see how the C500 stacks up against the Alexa, though. If the Canon's got a higher resolution, similar dynamic range, can output in an equivalent format, and its image quality is comparable then it's going to eat market share. If it doesn't stack up then there's a good chance that the inevitable C700 will in a few years, due to Canon's larger R&D department.

The other thing is that everyone seems to get obsessed with specs. Chase and Status had a music video shot on '90s standard def video kit a year or two ago. Whilst it isn't as clean an image as an Alexa or C300 would produce, it suits the art direction far, far better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top