Interview with Canon's Larry Thorpe on C300 - Explains a lot

[Erich Ocean]

I think I'm starting to understand the C300. I believe that Canon did listen to a lot of industry people. But you know what? They were not us!

We are by and large (there are, of course, exceptions to the detailed generalization I am about to make) are one man bands who do just about everything... but probably none of them at the very highest of levels. Are there a lot of ASC's, ACE's, feature film composers here? Honestly? Probably not. We own a camera or two, a few lav mics, a boom, some lights and bounce cards and maybe still lenses that we call "primes"... maybe a set of cine-modded ZF's or even better CP.2's or Panchros--and then you're a king. We shoot all sorts of stuff from bat mitzvahs to features w/ budgets of under $1 million. We think Resolve Lite is like we died and went to heaven... but also see it as a sign of continued wage deflation.

Nobody talking to us would create a $20K camera. And by realizing that those dots don't connect, I can conclude that Canon didn't talk to us. Canon talked to people working inside the industry. And what they must have heard is, "We need!:"

1. A small form factor. Easy to shoot on location, hand hold and support.
2. Great low light performance. Less money spent on lighting.
3. Broadcast approved and easy to edit. No add-on cards, everyone's on the same page in terms of color science, no need for bleeding edge computers or specialized software and workflow knowledge.
4. Reliable. No odd failures or disabled features.
5. "Cheap." But doesn't have to be that cheap. For a lot of reality TV shows, the XF305 at $8K is uber-cheap b/c it takes a great picture, is easy to post and very reliable.

If the above are your requirements, then the C300 IS your camera.

So, this is an excellent post, and I did think you nailed the reasons why the camera is what it is.

The only thing I would add is that all of the things you listed are very valuable to both producers and filmmakers, who you can sum up their on-set existence with one word: setups.

Anything that can increase the number of setups per day, while reducing post costs, is a win. The C300 does really well in this area IMO, and that's why I expect it to be rented way more often than the F3.

 

[dustylense]

Exactly.

That is who the C300 was designed for.

It was not designed for DSLR shooters. It was designed to appeal to Hollywood shooters themselves, which is why they consulted with Hollywood shooters, they held the launch event at a Hollywood studio, they hired a Hollywood PR firm to put on the event, and they're opening a service and support center IN HOLLYWOOD.

The C300 is not for "the rest of us". It is what it is, but I don't believe it was ever intended to be sold in mass quantities to DSLR shooters.

This is the very thing I'm TRYING to relay to the section moderator Rick. It's spelt out in all the interviews from Canon. They say it over and over. Read the interviews and read between the lines and think from a corporate stance, not a technical gear head stance. Rick, or anybody on this forum. Were you contacted with a survey about what you would like to see in Canon "cinema"? Anybody? The cameras MSRP is $20,000! A drop in the bucket for Hollywood, but an outrage for US. They want to avoid by all means having to mass produce this camera. All they want if for it to be in the hands of those in Hollywood so it can progress, and then trickle down to the prosumer. The productions in Hollywood will be sold (by the reps from Canon that visit them) a handful of cameras and they will care less about how it stands up to the ALexa or Epic or anything. They will be handed to the DIT's and they will be asked to "Figure out how we can use this camera". Then that feedback will go right back to Canon so they can make progressions on the C line all while developing better processors, sensors, possibly codecs, and function.
Of course you're not gonna hear the word "TEST" from Canon, Rick. This is the launch of a "Division" for Canon. They are a roadmap corporation and I don't think they give a damn about the F3 or RED. They already have the plan written out about the "Cinema" line in SPECIFIC detail. It's called a business plan. They are at version 1.0 and targeting the 1%. ANd that is the Hollywood "BROADCAST" aspect of production, which is why this camera is 1080p and mpeg 422.
It's all spelt out in the OP's links. Not in the white papers or spec page for the camera. It's a feel Hollywood out test run introduction and gather feedback device. And it's not "my opinion". It's taking Canon and the links to the interviews "at their word", looking at who's been involved in the event, and where the event was held.

 

[GH2user]

But is it the right tool to shoot commercials with?

It COULD be the right tool to shoot A commercial with... but with the lack of over-cranking... it seems like it would be a bad investment for a production company that does commercials and music videos on a regular basis. That's why I don't understand how they can say it's aimed at "professionals". It lacks the features for expensive high-budget shoots and it's over-priced for indies and smaller companies. It's not a bad camera, it just missed every mark possible...

As someone said when the night it was released... "too much, too little, too late..." This seems like it holds true for any level of production and budget.

 

[Erich Ocean]

As someone said when the night it was released... "too much, too little, too late..." This seems like it holds true for any level of production and budget.

Would that be the same person that scoffed at the Alexa when it came out, vis. the Red One?

 

[Jester2138]

I think I'm starting to understand the C300. I believe that Canon did listen to a lot of industry people. But you know what? They were not us!

This is the very thing I'm TRYING to relay to the section moderator Rick... The cameras MSRP is $20,000! A drop in the bucket for Hollywood, but an outrage for US. They want to avoid by all means having to mass produce this camera.

I agree it's not made for lower-budget folk, and the pricing is probably deliberately set way higher than it could have been to avoid having to market and support lower-budget folk.

But I still think maintaining artificially high prices for corporate reasons is a net negative for the filmmaking industry as a whole. I'd say the same thing about RED or Sony or any other company.

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

It can also be the C300 will be a camera with no fuzz about it expect outputting excellent footage. Not the cool toy many at dvxuser wants but rather a movie making workhorse.

 

[Rick Burnett]

This is the very thing I'm TRYING to relay to the section moderator Rick. It's spelt out in all the interviews from Canon. They say it over and over. Read the interviews and read between the lines and think from a corporate stance, not a technical gear head stance. Rick, or anybody on this forum. Were you contacted with a survey about what you would like to see in Canon "cinema"? Anybody? The cameras MSRP is $20,000! A drop in the bucket for Hollywood, but an outrage for US. They want to avoid by all means having to mass produce this camera. All they want if for it to be in the hands of those in Hollywood so it can progress, and then trickle down to the prosumer. The productions in Hollywood will be sold (by the reps from Canon that visit them) a handful of cameras and they will care less about how it stands up to the ALexa or Epic or anything. They will be handed to the DIT's and they will be asked to "Figure out how we can use this camera". Then that feedback will go right back to Canon so they can make progressions on the C line all while developing better processors, sensors, possibly codecs, and function.
Of course you're not gonna hear the word "TEST" from Canon, Rick. This is the launch of a "Division" for Canon. They are a roadmap corporation and I don't think they give a damn about the F3 or RED. They already have the plan written out about the "Cinema" line in SPECIFIC detail. It's called a business plan. They are at version 1.0 and targeting the 1%. ANd that is the Hollywood "BROADCAST" aspect of production, which is why this camera is 1080p and mpeg 422.
It's all spelt out in the OP's links. Not in the white papers or spec page for the camera. It's a feel Hollywood out test run introduction and gather feedback device.

Just because Canon targets a particular group of people has no relevance to the matter of whether I think a cameras technology is overpriced or not. After the initial sticker shock, that day, it was quite clear who the camera was designed for. This isn't a new revelation, and as Barry can attest, something many of us understood this whole time. I absolutely understand the target market, as you say, it's clear as day. That said, in my professional opinion, as an engineer who has worked on digital cameras and CMOS designs, that I felt the cost of the camera seemed too high for what you are getting. That's it. If you don't agree, that's fine, but nothing about what Canon is trying to accomplish matters to my opinion, and it's just an opinion. If people want to pay more because it's "designed for Hollywood" then that is up to them, and their needs, and their return on investment. I'm not paying for an association to a "name".

I work in a HIGHLY competitive business that makes hundreds of millions of electronic devices every year. If you think for one second that Canon is not aware of Sony, Red, Arri, etc, then you really don't have a good insight to how a product division of a company works. It would be foolish of them not to keep an eye on the competition. Even at the most basic of levels, to learn from other companies mistakes. I bet many professionals that they consulted complained about what they didn't like about other cameras. I understand product roadmaps VERY well, and I absolutely understand that roadmaps change CONSTANTLY because the playing field changes CONSTANTLY. Not always by huge leaps and bounds, but sometimes that can happen.

In fact, what companies that develop products that you've worked for didn't have a roadmap? Because I've not seen one that didn't. Just because the company doesn't talk about it publicly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Do you think Sony or Panasonic is just sitting around waiting to decide what the next step is? I HIGHLY doubt it. In fact, I bet they were already working on the next generation before the current generation began shipping. It's how product companies work. Again, I work for one, so I have first hand experience. I bet Sony has plans laid out for YEARS to come. They will change, just as Canon's will change, as they do market research which includes customer feedback. This is nothing new.

Like I said, I've read the interviews, read the white papers, specs, etc, as I do *really* like the camera. I know who the target audience is. It doesn't change the fact that I, and other people, think it's overpriced for what you get. Even if it was cheaper I would be disappointed with some of the specs (specifically 8-bit, no built in mic, no built in XLR, but separate module). I'm not asking you to share that opinion, I'm just stating it to see what others feel about those same things. Why can't you understand this?

 

[Erich Ocean]

It can also be the C300 will be a camera with no fuzz about it expect outputting excellent footage. Not the cool toy many at dvxuser wants but rather a movie making workhorse.

^^ This.

On another note, I just spec'd out how much it costs to use Red's RedVolt batteries to run continuously for a day of Scarlet shooting (assuming you can charge as you go).

The cost? The Scarlet is $4780 for 12 RedVolt batteries (20-25 minutes per battery), a Quad charger, and a Quad battery module on the camera to put the RedVolts in.

For the C300? It's an extra $400 for the two additional batteries you need to run all day, and you don't have to charge during the day either.

For the F3, the battery situation is better than the Scarlet, but gets worse again once you add that external box to actually record 4:2:2.

"Movie making workhorse" about sums it up, at least for me.

 

[LiamR]

If you are complaining about the extra prices for the RED then you are clearly not there target audience. They will be selling them pro dominantly to rental houses and productions studios, who can easily afford it, this is not a camera for you to film your buddies film on. The cash flow back from this camera SHOULD pay itself back in minimal months, if not, then you've bought the wrong camera.

 

[Jadotch]

The Scarlet is $4780 for 12 RedVolt batteries (20-25 minutes per battery), a Quad charger, and a Quad battery module on the camera to put the RedVolts in.

How about the 6 pack of RED Bricks instead? A little cheaper than the 12 RED Volts. But still, good point. Just nit picking.

 

[dustylense]

Like I said, I've read the interviews, read the white papers, specs, etc, as I do *really* like the camera. I know who the target audience is. It doesn't change the fact that I, and other people, think it's overpriced for what you get. Even if it was cheaper I would be disappointed with some of the specs (specifically 8-bit, no built in mic, no built in XLR, but separate module). I'm not asking you to share that opinion, I'm just stating it to see what others feel about those same things. Why can't you understand this?

Care to share your link to the C300's white papers?

 

[Nuno Dias]

It COULD be the right tool to shoot A commercial with... but with the lack of over-cranking... it seems like it would be a bad investment for a production company that does commercials and music videos on a regular basis. That's why I don't understand how they can say it's aimed at "professionals". It lacks the features for expensive high-budget shoots and it's over-priced for indies and smaller companies. It's not a bad camera, it just missed every mark possible...

As someone said when the night it was released... "too much, too little, too late..." This seems like it holds true for any level of production and budget.

I've been shooting commercials for the past 8 years and stopped cranking 4 years ago. Such a cliché that nobody wants it anymore, not even me. But if real slo mo is needed, Phantom is the camera to do it.

And this to much, to little to late thing is too old news. Come on, we're way pass that now, don't try to get into that again. Its boring.

 

[Kholi]

I've been shooting commercials for the past 8 years and stopped cranking 4 years ago. Such a cliché that nobody wants it anymore, not even me. But if real slo mo is needed, Phantom is the camera to do it.

And this to much, to little to late thing is too old news. Come on, we're way pass that now, don't try to get into that again. Its boring.

Yeah, man. I'm glad someone actually spoke up about this. No one's over cranking outside of music video world and if they are, it's Phantom for SERIOUS overcranking, not measly 120FPS stuff.

People with money rent real gear. Period.

 

[Letzring]

Yeah, man. I'm glad someone actually spoke up about this. No one's over cranking outside of music video world and if they are, it's Phantom for SERIOUS overcranking, not measly 120FPS stuff.

People with money rent real gear. Period.

"No one" is probably a little too broad. For wildlife documentary good over-crank capability on a camera is pretty important. It wasn't that long ago that it wasn't available on any suitable HD field camera. Now if you want to talk 'cliche' I have two words. . .time lapse. But I digress. Different cameras for different purposes.

As for "people with money"; seems to be less and less of them every day.

 

[Nuno Dias]

Just came across this great interview on American Cinematographer to Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC. He talks about his experience shooting digital (for the first time) and how much he enjoyed shooting on the Alexa, but at the end he said something that I found very interesting that somehow might find its way to this long discussion here.

'When it comes down to the really technical stuff, you can always find people who know more about it than you do. One of my assistants, can blind me with his knowledge - I could never understand all of what he was talking about, but fortunately, I don't have to! That's not my strength, and that's not why people hire me. Cinematographers are hired for their eyes, for their artistic ability as visual storytellers, and for how they can run a set. Weather I'm shooting film or digital, my job remains the same; to use the camera to tell the story the best way I can.'

Bless him.

 

[Kholi]

"No one" is probably a little too broad. For wildlife documentary good over-crank capability on a camera is pretty important. It wasn't that long ago that it wasn't available on any suitable HD field camera. Now if you want to talk 'cliche' I have two words. . .time lapse. But I digress. Different cameras for different purposes.

As for "people with money"; seems to be less and less of them every day.

Yeah, no one's pretty broad. You're right.

On the other hand, money stays where money goes.

 

[GH2user]

Yeah, man. I'm glad someone actually spoke up about this. No one's over cranking outside of music video world and if they are, it's Phantom for SERIOUS overcranking, not measly 120FPS stuff.

People with money rent real gear. Period.

Ok , maybe some people are mundane DP's that do everything "by the book" and have no reason for over-cranking, but that doesn't mean that other people don't want it. Not everyone wants boring standard 24fps video all the time... and a professional cinema camera should be able to support whatever frame-rates the user wants. (within reason). There's always so much talk about "standards" and "x people do this" and "x people do that"... fallowing all the rules and "doing things like x people do them" DOESN'T make you more professional than people that don't.

BTW, people who constantly call out cliche's usually aren't very creative. It's what jealous people do out of spite when they're afraid of others' work. They want to make everything "standard" so that nobody's work stands out above others. Everything has it's place. You know what is more cliche than over-cranking? Shooting at 24 or 30fps all the time. They do it for literately the whole length of movies... super cliche. So are soundtracks... How cliche are "scores" these days? It seems like every movies has them. And color? Cliche. 24mm-100mm lenses? Cliche. Things in focus? Cliche. Color grading? Cliche. Three act structure. Cliche. Using "people" for actors. Cliche. 35mm format. Cliche.

You know what? High-res footage is starting to become cliche also... we better go back to standard def.

Doesn't anyone have a vision for anything different? Why are so many people obsesses with "standards" and fallowing other people's examples? What happened to exploring options instead of just saying "oh you didn't do that 'x' way, so you're not professional now".

Why don't the elite "professionals" at least stop beating around the bush and say what they really mean... "Any tool that is available to a large number of people that has the potential to de-value our work, creates cognitive dissonance, and in order to protect our ego's and psyche, we resort to calling it amateur or cliche."

 

[Kholi]

Ok , maybe some people are mundane DP's that do everything "by the book" and have no reason for over-cranking, but that doesn't mean that other people don't want it. Not everyone wants boring standard 24fps video all the time... and a professional cinema camera should be able to support whatever frame-rates the user wants. (within reason). There's always so much talk about "standards" and "x people do this" and "x people do that"... fallowing all the rules and "doing things like x people do them" DOESN'T make you more professional than people that don't.

Oh... my bad... I didn't know most film cameras were not professional cameras. I guess I-Max cameras aren't professional cameras... ... ...

BTW, people who constantly call out cliche's usually aren't very creative. It's what jealous people do out of spite when they're afraid of others' work.

Trust me... I am very jealous of others work. VERY

You know what? High-res footage is starting to become cliche also... we better go back to standard def.

By the way, who said cliche to begin with?

Doesn't anyone have a vision for anything different? Why are so many people obsesses with "standards" and fallowing other people's examples? What happened to exploring option instead of just saying "oh you didn't do that 'x' way, so you're not professional now".

Let me know when you have a different vision, and I'll send it over to the 'everything is a remix' guys to break it down for you how it's exactly like everything else that's been done centuries before you did it.

Talk = easy
do = simple

 

[acoelho1]

Just came across this great interview on American Cinematographer to Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC. He talks about his experience shooting digital (for the first time) and how much he enjoyed shooting on the Alexa, but at the end he said something that I found very interesting that somehow might find its way to this long discussion here.

'When it comes down to the really technical stuff, you can always find people who know more about it than you do. One of my assistants, can blind me with his knowledge - I could never understand all of what he was talking about, but fortunately, I don't have to! That's not my strength, and that's not why people hire me. Cinematographers are hired for their eyes, for their artistic ability as visual storytellers, and for how they can run a set. Weather I'm shooting film or digital, my job remains the same; to use the camera to tell the story the best way I can.'

Bless him.

A great storyteller doesn't need a 20k camera either. I'll stick with my 5D2 and GH2. Call me when Canon delivers the 5D3.

 

[TimurCivan]

I propose a challenge to all the big talkers in here.

DVXuser sponsors festivals every 3 months. Join em. Make a movie. you think your GH2 is a great story telling tool? Prove it.

F3? Red? Alexa? F65? GH2? 5D? make a movie. Lets see all this talk turn to action.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?234-DVXFest-ScareFEST

a few years ago, we had over 150+ entries per fest, with great prizes, and great knowledge and filmmaking happening.

Arm chair Directors are dime a dozen. Make a movie. Not a montage.... not a slomo "cool" video, not a timelapse set to music. A Movie. A story, with structure, characters, and plot.