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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hydarnes said:
exactly, if you check how much a "packaged scarlet" will cost you (15-16k) and compare it to the canon (with a streetprice of 15-16k) you will find that red has serious competition, think about it:

canon gives you 1080p ON A S35 SENSOR where the scarlet gives you 2k on a 2/3 crop. As someone who is going dvd/bluray + tv + web only, which would be the cheapest (in total,after post) and easiest/fastest option? Dont forget that 1080p was always more than enough for silver screen, and now the canon has REAL 1080p, S35 + 8mp downscaled (properly) PLUS super low light powers :) (oh and the beatiful canon colours ^^, no fanboi :P)

i knida have the feeling that the scarlet is hmmm how should i put it: look, when you are brown (ma momma is white and daddy is black ;) ) whites call you black and blacks call you white - you dont belong to one group (or better: no group fully accepts you) this is for me the scarlet. If you tell me "i need the fidelity of the redraw, I ask you "cant you simply whitebalance properly, light proffesionally and color the image of a F3 the way you want it without any quality downgrades?"


in my eyes, there is only ONE ture "salvation" for the red = the "now" cheap and very fast (many up to 0.95) c-mount glas. Simply shoot 4k? For many, thats totally overkill and coupled with direct and indirect money loss (direct = "more" expensive hardware (production and post) and indircet = all the "time" thats lost with the extra work) that why you see many being totally happy with their panny af102 (i know... i know... different beast 5k and 15k are two diff. worlds, but here, my argument of "not belonging to one group" comes into effect, scarlet should habe been 6-8k or 16-20k)
Click to expand...

I think you completely missed the story and headline of the Scarlet-X. It is a S35 camera, the spec you are saying is the old 2/3 concept that has been abandoned. It is more or less and Epic but with less speed.
 
Hydarnes said:
exactly, if you check how much a "packaged scarlet" will cost you (15-16k) and compare it to the canon (with a streetprice of 15-16k) you will find that red has serious competition, think about it:

canon gives you 1080p ON A S35 SENSOR where the scarlet gives you 2k on a 2/3 crop. As someone who is going dvd/bluray + tv + web only, which would be the cheapest (in total,after post) and easiest/fastest option? Dont forget that 1080p was always more than enough for silver screen, and now the canon has REAL 1080p, S35 + 8mp downscaled (properly) PLUS super low light powers :) (oh and the beatiful canon colours ^^, no fanboi :P)

i knida have the feeling that the scarlet is hmmm how should i put it: look, when you are brown (ma momma is white and daddy is black ;) ) whites call you black and blacks call you white - you dont belong to one group (or better: no group fully accepts you) this is for me the scarlet. If you tell me "i need the fidelity of the redraw, I ask you "cant you simply whitebalance properly, light proffesionally and color the image of a F3 the way you want it without any quality downgrades?"


in my eyes, there is only ONE ture "salvation" for the red = the "now" cheap and very fast (many up to 0.95) c-mount glas. Simply shoot 4k? For many, thats totally overkill and coupled with direct and indirect money loss (direct = "more" expensive hardware (production and post) and indircet = all the "time" thats lost with the extra work) that why you see many being totally happy with their panny af102 (i know... i know... different beast 5k and 15k are two diff. worlds, but here, my argument of "not belonging to one group" comes into effect, scarlet should habe been 6-8k or 16-20k)
Click to expand...

did you have a nice restful coma? Alot has changed in 3 years.
 
PerroneFord said:
I will agree with you if you stipulate to the fact we are talking Canon VIDEO division. The stills division has done absolutely ASTONISHING work the past few years. But yes, this is exactly why I had zero faith in their video division. Each of the companies has done about exactly what I expected. Panasonic came in with a "kinda" cine camera at an excellent price point. Sony made a camera that competed in this space and one that a pro could really get to work with. JVC is wandering somewhere in the dark as usual, and Canon hit a homerun.... but in the wrong game.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how I feel. Once I hear video division, there is a red flag in my head. I would like to know if there is in the electronic industry, one that has been slower and conservative. Without the photo Dslr world, we would still be discussing about the latest 1/2 or 2/3 chip camera for 20k. People would tell you that you are crazy if you thought that you could get an s35 camera shooting hd for less than $ 1000, or a vista vision one for $ 2500. It has been so conservative and slow that in the end people have thought that it was impossible. If you see the photo world the change have been nothing but staggering. In the last decade you have started from a couple megapixel to 24 and 36 by next year. Low light progress have been spectacular, even with the cramming of more pixel. Now people complain if they don't have a clean 1600 ISO or even more. Dr also is increasing. We are at the eve of new generation camera launch from Nikon and Canon 1dx and Canon photo division has been a big actor of this progress. Now tell me how you can compare such progress with the video division. I forgot one last thing which is the most staggering, price. When those digital slr started they were in the ten of thousand now you can have a very capable 18 megapixel cam for less than $ 800.

For the C300 what annoys me the most is that they basically use the inwards of the 3 year old XF line camera starting at $ 3500 and sell it for $ 20 000. Ok you did not have time to put a new processing unit, you had to use an old one, but please price it accordingly. When you have finish the next one, then with the new spec you can charge higher prices.
 
Danielvilliers said:
If you see the photo world the change have been nothing but staggering. In the last decade you have started from a couple megapixel to 24 and 36 by next year. Low light progress have been spectacular, even with the cramming of more pixel. Now people complain if they don't have a clean 1600 ISO or even more. Dr also is increasing. We are at the eve of new generation camera launch from Nikon and Canon 1dx and Canon photo division has been a big actor of this progress. Now tell me how you can compare such progress with the video division. I forgot one last thing which is the most staggering, price. When those digital slr started they were in the ten of thousand now you can have a very capable 18 megapixel cam for less than $ 800.

For the C300 what annoys me the most is that they basically use the inwards of the 3 year old XF line camera starting at $ 3500 and sell it for $ 20 000. Ok you did not have time to put a new processing unit, you had to use an old one, but please price it accordingly. When you have finish the next one, then with the new spec you can charge higher prices.
Click to expand...

I don't think we can directly apply the rapid development of DSLRs over to video because the two markets differ vastly in size and volume. In 2010, manufacturers shipped a total of $21 billion worth of digital cameras. Of that, $6 billion were DSLR bodies. In quantities, this was about 12 million units. Canon owes 44% of the DSLR market, so they probably shipped around 5 million bodies, which is on average 15,000 bodies every single day. The numbers are staggering. Btw, my statistics are from CIPA and IDC.

Now according to these articles posted earlier by Steve Castle:
http://translate.google.com/transla....impress.co.jp/docs/news/20111104_488632.html
http://translate.google.com/transla...-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http://digitalcamera.jp/

Canon's goal is to achieve 40% market share of digital cinema by 2015, resulting in $128 million in sales (10 billion yen). So back calculating the 40% means the digital cinema market is only about $320 million (and that's in 2015). $320 million is miniscule compared to the stills market. That's only 5% of DSLR sales and 1.5% of all still digital cameras. It seems like it should be more if we look at RED sales, so my calculations could be off. I'm just going by that Canon slide.

But here's the bigger picture. A goal of achieving 40% market share from zero in only 3 years is extremely aggressive. Normally you'd even say that's delusion. But this is not some rep saying this and this is not Canon USA saying it, this is Canon's business plan displayed for all to see on those Powerpoint slides in Tokyo.

Canon has always been conservative and methodical. I can't see them coming up with plans like this and not being able to back it up. That's why this is very telling.

I saw the camera yesterday at the Canon Event at Paramount Studios. I played with it for hours. I saw screenings of the mini movies in the Paramount Theatre. I talked to people and overheard others who actually work in Hollywood. My conclusion: I'm not worried about Canon at all. They will do extremely well in the long run.
 
Last edited:
Piolet said:
I saw the camera yesterday at the Canon Event at Paramount Studios. I played with it for hours. I saw screenings of the mini movies in the Paramount Theatre. I talked to people and overheard others who actually work in Hollywood. My conclusion: I'm not worried about Canon at all. They will do extremely well in the long run.
Click to expand...

I was working the Canon event on November 3rd at Paramount. This was my exact thought after seeing the films projected, speaking with the filmmakers who used it, and playing with the camera. People can gripe on the internet tubes all they want about price, specs, features, etc - but at the end of the day the C300 does fit very nicely in the category it's been placed, and the proof was certainly in the pudding on Thursday.
 
I also was at the Paramount event yesterday, & have no doubt Canon is "in it to win it".

Asked a number of the DPs who've actually shot the camera what they thought of the 8-bit, & none mentioned experiencing any issues. Bob Primes, ASC, stated he was concerned about out this spec, but that numbers don't tell the whole story.

That said I do feel Canon should have branched out from just surveying union DPs when designing the camera. If nothing else I wish the C300 displayed focus distance, which should be simple with the EOS-mount version, & by utilizing Cooke’s /i Technology in their PL system.
 
Last edited:
The 7D did not outclass the 5D in every way. I own a 7D, I should know. There is NO manual control on the 7D for audio, AGC is full on always. The 5D sensor is also more sensitive than the 7D. I've shot with both. Granted, I love my 7D and do not want a FullFrame camera, I can recognize what is better about it.

Pertaining to the people at the Canon event, do you really think that caliper of people are going to judge the technical to dollar worth of a camera when they are used to using camera 4x to 10x the cost alone?!? Of course they don't see an issue with the price. Why would they? For most of the people there, this cost would be the LEAST cost they would be concerned with in their productions. Even if it was more.

If those people want to pay that much, and Canon just wants that level of user, that's what they'll get. They will get buyers, no doubt. But I dare say they could have had A LOT more if they'd have played their cards differently in what they designed or the target. Why is it so many more people have put down payments on the Red or are working towards getting a Scarlet-X, whereas, I have yet to read one person who would pre-order the C300? I've read one person that can't wait to rent one, but that is it. Clearly something was missed.

If they want to disappoint some of their users, that's up to them. Trying to sell me $20k for a technology that is old, in which they use in their $3000 camera, like most of what exists in the C300, sorry, I've got more technical wherewithal than that.

You don't see me complaining about the cost of the F3 or the Epic, or even the Alexa? Their price points make sense to me. The C300, it does not, at all.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Pertaining to the people at the Canon event, do you really think that caliper of people are going to judge the technical to dollar worth of a camera when they are used to using camera 4x to 10x the cost alone?!? Of course they don't see an issue with the price.
Click to expand...

We just said a lot of people seem to like the camera's performance and usability. These people are probably going to rent it, so price isn't a huge issue. There were some gripes though. Some more technical people did wish it was 10 bit. A few wanted an optical viewfinder. But they seem to understand this was just the first camera and only the beginning.
 
Rick Burnett said:
If they want to disappoint some of their users, that's up to them. Trying to sell me $20k for a technology that is old, in which they use in their $3000 camera, like most of what exists in the C300, sorry, I've got more technical wherewithal than that.
Click to expand...
Rick, the C300 sensor is brand new, built from scratch. Lot's of new tech in there that we haven't even been able to digest yet. Also, have you played with a C300? Have you ran any C300 footage through your NLE? In fact, has anyone here gotten to test the C300 yet? How much input did you get to put into the C300 project? As I understand it, many TOP notch pros had a say in the process. And, keep in mind, Hollywood is bigger than just feature films. Just turn on your TV to see that. This camera is the FIRST of the Canon "C" line. Most likely aimed for Hollywood broadcast production. Ya know, show like House, CSI. Not the Hobbit.
It's a processor, Rick. Processors can be used to process differently. They chose it to process a mgeg-2 50bit 422, BUT OFF a BRAND NEW SENSOR with BRAND NEW TECH. It's not a pumped up 5dmk2. It's a s35 DV cinema camera that is driven by technicolor science with the C300 LOG.
Why don't we all sit back and with until you ACTUALLY see and FEEL results that come out of the camera before we take what we think is the technology in the camera. Are the white papers even out yet? Again, wait for some sample footage that we can play with before making our final judgements.
 
dustylense said:
And, keep in mind, Hollywood is bigger than just feature films. Just turn on your TV to see that. This camera is the FIRST of the Canon "C" line. Most likely aimed for Hollywood broadcast production. Ya know, show like House, CSI. Not the Hobbit.
Click to expand...

Yep, the camera is really intended as 'A' cameras for independent films, commercials, television and dramas and as as 'B' cameras on major motion pictures. This doesn't necessarily mean the camera isn't intended for owner-operators, but $60K Digital Betacams were also bought by owner-operators.

Are the white papers even out yet?
Click to expand...

No white papers yet, but there's lot of useful stuff in their Knowledge Base: http://learn.usa.canon.com/dlc/arti...ledgebase.spr?subCategoryId=224&categoryId=20

9 pages of info on the C300:
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/c300_for_cinematographers.shtml?categoryId=224

Very detailed FAQ:
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/misc/cinemaEOS_faq.shtml

On Set Data Management with the EOS C300
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/c300_onset_data_mgmnt.shtml?categoryId=224

Understanding the EOS C300's Canon Log Gamma
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/understand_log_gamma.shtml?categoryId=224
 
Yep, I too have gone to most those links. But here is what I'm trying to convey. Let's wait for feedback from those who use the camera OOORRRRR... Maybe determine ourselves after we have have chances to play with them ourselves. Has anybody seen the list price on any US websites. Remember that the $20,000 is MSRP. We can still get a shock once they start selling. I also keep saying that this camera is not your 5Dmk2 relacement, not is it a fs100 replacement. It's not a Scartlet competitor, nor an F3. It's Canons FIRST C line product. Although if it were $13,000 I would buy in a heartbeat. I love the look of it's form factor.
 
cowpunk52 said:
No, it isn't listed yet because final actual price has not been set definitively, AFAIK.
Click to expand...
Thats part of my point. What if it were $15,000? Would you consider it? Remember that it's modular. Let's just sit back and see what happens. HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS that I don;t see many mentioning. Canon has invested in entering the CINEMA world. We still have to wait and see how the 1Dc cam develops.
 
Don't get me wrong, I like the camera, a lot. I understand the science and math involved with the image processing, and from what I have read of their sensor, I really like what they are doing with it. Regardless of that, and this is my own opinion, as I've stated, I think the price is off with what they've shared. I work with CMOS design EVERY DAY, and have for the last 16 years. It's not like I'm completely out of the loop. When I look at the camera design and materials used, when I look at the components used, etc. Or even at the required data rates, I'm not seeing technology needs that push a price that high for what is included in the entire data path. Like I said, taking the imager out of the equation and looking at THE SAME tech in other cameras by them, the price difference of ~$17k for the imager and some electronics that go with it (which are more than likely on the same die) make NO sense to me.

I think the camera will shoot great, and I am sure, I will find things it wont do that well either, which I've discovered with EVERY SINGLE CAMERA I have ever used. It's just the nature of different needs for different people.

I see amazing videos all the time from cameras that don't give the whole story. A perfect example is the Epic. I had come to believe from the 'Leo' tests that the camera shot AMAZING low light. That's not what I believe anymore.

I never knew from the sample footage from the AF100 that it didn't handle hilights that well as compared to say the 7D or 5D, but boy I found that out when I started using mine.

But, all that said, just because an imager does a good job doesn't instantly assign a dollar value to it. The price I am willing to pay for something is relative to the worth of what I see it. I bought a 7D because the price was acceptable to me for what I was getting. I bought an AF100 because I thought the price was acceptable. I bought an FS100 because the price was acceptable to me. The C300 is the first time I've felt something was GROSSLY overpriced for the technology included.

If others don't feel that way, that's fine, but thinking I've not tried to do as much research as possible and look at it from as many perspective as possible is incorrect. I'm hearing professionals confused about the pricing as well, people that wouldn't have a problem spending $20k on a camera. It's not just a few people that are baffled.
 
Rick Burnett said:
I'm hearing professionals confused about the pricing as well, people that wouldn't have a problem spending $20k on a camera. It's not just a few people that are baffled.
Click to expand...

I'm one of them.

I was ready to jump with Canon, but at that price, I jumped on the Scarlet X instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top