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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I found another, longer, and more interesting interview with Larry here at Imaging-Resource.com: http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-thorpe-on-the-new-cinema-eos-digital-cameras

Some cliff notes:

  • The cine lenses are developed by the Broadcast Division optics group (not the EOS group). The guy that heads up this unit is delighted to be in this new business. He's the same guy that worked on lenses for NHK's 8K UHD project.
  • By 4th quarter next year they'll have two more new cine zooms. These will be lighter and less expensive then the two they already announced. They will still resolve 4K.
  • In 2013, there will two more cine primes. On another site, this is reported to be an ultra-wide and a telephoto prime.
  • He goes into some details about how the sensor works. It puts out 4:4:4 without the need for debayering or interpolation. This cuts down on calculations that need to be done in camera (that's why it uses so little power). Seems like such a simple solution. I wonder why others don't do this. Maybe Canon has a patent on it? I don't know.
  • The EOS and video group use to live in separate worlds, but that's definitely changing. "This project brought some of them together, and Mr. [Masaya] Maeda, he was banging heads to make sure that as we go forward, you're going to see more and more of that, so there's going to be a lot of cross-fertilization." Masaya Maeda is the Chief Executive of the Image Communications Product group--basically the head cheese of Canon's entire camera/optics group.
  • The C300 sensor was designed by both the EOS and video groups.
  • He gets into some technical stuff about 4K lenses and what they have to do.
  • Interviewer asks a great question about whether Sony is pissed off at them now. Larry gives a diplomatic but honest answer.
Larry Thorpe has an interesting history. He's a technical guy and well known in broadcast circles. He joined Canon in 2004 after more than 20 years at Sony because Sony was having economic problems and offered him early retirement. At Sony he got them to design cameras with CCD and he took HD electronic cinematography to Hollywood. He was one of the leaders in bringing HDTV to the U.S. Years before that he worked at RCA and the BBC developing color television cameras and telecine equipment. He's been inducted in the Sports Broadcasting Hall of Fame.
 
Last edited:
The EOS and video group use to live in separate worlds, but that's definitely changing. "This project brought some of them together, and Mr. [Masaya] Maeda, he was banging heads to make sure that as we go forward, you're going to see more and more of that, so there's going to be a lot of cross-fertilization." Masaya Maeda is the Chief Executive of the Image Communications Product group--basically the head cheese of the entire camera/optics group.
Click to expand...

This part is quite interesting. Having this cross talk should create benefits for everyone. Thanks for posting.
Despite a few potential problems with the 300 - price, lack of 1080 overcranck, I think the development of this system as whole, is definitely quite exciting.
 
I find it a bit naive for some to take the words of people that are working or have been contracted by Canon as necessarily truth. In a court of justice it is called conflict of interest. So do you think all those professional that have been surely well paid will tell you anything bad about this camera. If you were in their place what would you do. They are not a bunch of students or hobbyist that would have done it free for Canon. These people are established professional that walk only to the tune of money.

I have been a graphic designer and then pro photographer the last 20 years. So anybody can tell anything he wants about 8 bit, I know what it is. I know the difference when I shoot raw or jpeg. I know how they work and what are there limitation and not even someone on the payrol of Canon from Hollywood that 8 bit is good. Do anybody know how those shots were taken. If there was need of much more re-shoot than usual because they had no flexibility in the files that they had to be bang on. How much massage those files went through. how much take that were binned even if they would have been better. How much did not pass trough because at dawn or dust the gradation in the sky is such that it will cause banding in a 8 bit file. Who knows, the history of film is full of stories where the crew had to make choices or shortcuts because of some limitation. Sometime they came with very creative way to do that, that became a style in itself. but the question here is not that, the question is how 8 bit has suddenly come good enough for Hollywood? They should get rid of all those high-end post station etc. who needs that when 8 bit is enough.

The last thing I would add is I have only seen the La Foret short an been impressed by it. Now what went behind, did it need two three time more time to shoot of post process and decision where made not to shoot X or Y scene because it would expose the camera weaknesses. We will have to wait to see some independent test to really judge. Before that I won't believe that 8 bit is good enough.
 
Danielvilliers said:
These people are established professional that walk only to the tune of money.
Click to expand...

That's not a cool thing to say about people you don't know. Not cool, man.

Danielvilliers said:
The last thing I would add is I have only seen the La Foret short an been impressed by it. Now what went behind, did it need two three time more time to shoot of post process and decision where made not to shoot X or Y scene because it would expose the camera weaknesses. We will have to wait to see some independent test to really judge. Before that I won't believe that 8 bit is good enough.
Click to expand...

You can ask Vincent on his blog http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2011...kers-the-tools-keep-getting-better/#more-6505

But so far he has said:
I’m amazed with what I saw from an 8-bit 4:2:2 sensor. 8 bit is always 8 bit though to be fair! That being said our image never broke up during grading sessions at Efilm on a 22 foot screen.

At the risk of sounding like i’m blowing my own horn- I’m one of a dozen people to have actually worked with the C300 to date. Most people on the web are going off of spec sheets – and that’s an almost irresponsible thing to do. The C300 is unimpressive on paper I’ll readily admit. I myself wasn’t impressed when I first saw the specs. When I saw the image coming off of the camera and ultimately graded and projected – I became a big fan of the camera.
Click to expand...
 
Personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you're unimpressed by the camera, the specs or the price, feel free to move along. But openly questioning and criticizing the ethics and motivations of other professionals will earn you a vacation from DVXUser, either temporary or permanent.

Let's keep the discussion civil and on-topic.
 
The reaction to the 5D Mark II astonished us, and we had filmmakers all over us. There was a plea - 'if you've done this, can't you possibly make a full motion imaging camera with everything that we need, and none of the limitations of the 5DII?' And that triggered a very speedy program - less than two years - to develop this camera.
Click to expand...

The 5DII shipped nearly 3 years ago... so if it took less than 2 years to make this camera what happened to the extra time? Has Canon been sitting on this camera for a year? Was Canon so astonished by the reaction to HDSLR that it took them a year to start working on this?

I really think Canon was in the position to really take command of a new segment of the video market (large frame chip / affordable MSRP), but three years later I'm wondering if they've already missed the boat to being king of the hill.
 
Last edited:
zijital said:
.........I really think Canon was in the position to really take command of a new segment of the video market (large frame chip / affordable MSRP), but three years later I'm wondering if they've already missed the boat to being king of the hill.
Click to expand...

I said this exact same thing in the other C300 thread... the DSLR revolution hit them back in 2008 shortly after RED came out and shipped in 2007 and Canon still didn't see it or decided to do nothing with it until now, and then only to be last again?

Man it wreaks ignorance or stupidity.
 
Piolet said:
I found another, longer, and more interesting interview with Larry here at Imaging-Resource.com: http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...-thorpe-on-the-new-cinema-eos-digital-cameras

Some cliff notes:
  • The cine lenses are developed by the Broadcast Division optics group (not the EOS group).
Click to expand...

The Cine lenses may have been developed by the Broadcast Division, but it's likely the primes lenses are repurposed EOS 'L' glass as they seem identical in speed, & provide full coverage of the 5D.
 
Canon is an ocean liner trying to make a sharp turn . It isn't going to happen quickly. Red a small company that can make the sharp turns more easily has spent three + years trying to get the scarlet out and then they never really released it. At least whats obvious from both companies is that development of a new camera takes takes time. But I have a feeling that going forward I will be owning a Canon and not a Scarlet when the price is right.
 
zijital said:
The 5DII shipped nearly 3 years ago... so if it took less than 2 years to make this camera what happened to the extra time? Has Canon been sitting on this camera for a year? Was Canon so astonished by the reaction to HDSLR that it took them a year to start working on this?
Click to expand...

The only way Canon sat on the camera for a year is if they started developing the C300 almost immediately after the 5DII was released. I think you have to assume that the "reaction" of people using the 5DII for cinematography in droves happened over the first year+ after the 5DII was released, then the idea for the C300 was proposed and worked on after that.
 
is it possible to get momentary focus with c300 and dedicated canon lens?
the lens stabilization , is it works with 300 ?
 
tomer said:
is it possible to get momentary focus with c300 and dedicated canon lens?
the lens stabilization , is it works with 300 ?
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by momentary, but the focus is fully manual. It can control and electronic focus and provide power from manual controls. Meaning, it can not automatically focus even in any sort of push to focus way.
 
momentary , you push the focus button and it focus , not tracking focus.
like on any dslr or even scarlet , does it ?
 
Here's a new interview by FD Times with Mr. Masaya Maeda, Canon’s Managing Director and Chief Executive of Image Communication Products Operations.

http://www.fdtimes.com/news/canon/interview-with-canon-managing-director-mr-maeda-2/

I like hearing about the back story to how these cameras were designed. Looks like they started development on the C300 around middle of 2009. From my own understanding, the driving force was Canon USA. There was one particular person really pushing for it. The idea force still seems to be Canon USA, with the engineering being done in Japan.
 
Thanks. I'm encouraged that he wants to keep improving things. For example, the sensitivity is great, "But I do believe that we can still improve on our sensitivity. What we would like to truly target is shooting a crow in the middle of the night."
 
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...

umm no. The scarlet gives you 4k on a 35mm sensor. yes it does 2k @ 60p on a 2/3" sized sensor.
 
Piolet said:
  • A lower cost model "would make a lot of sense in the marketplace"
Click to expand...

The problem Canon isn't seeing is that the C300 is the lower cost model. It should be ~$5k (which I still wouldn't pay, personally) and their $20k camera should do way, way, way, way, way, way more. Same to Sony about the F3.

The humiliating admission of how heavily it borrows from the XF305 strongly reinforces this. Obviously because sharing parts / higher volume = lower cost per part, but more importantly "mature" technologies should have very stabilized yields / manufacturing processes and be very inexpensive to make. Digic III!? Canon should be giving those away for free by now!
 
Last edited:
Lee Saxon said:
The problem Canon isn't seeing is that the C300 is the lower cost model. It should be ~$5k (which I still wouldn't pay, personally) and their $20k camera should do way, way, way, way, way, way more. Same to Sony about the F3.

The humiliating admission of how heavily it borrows from the XF305 strongly reinforces this. Obviously because sharing parts / higher volume = lower cost per part, but more importantly "mature" technologies should have very stabilized yields / manufacturing processes and be very inexpensive to make. Digic III!? Canon should be giving those away for free by now!
Click to expand...

The specs are irrelavent to a large extent. Laforet puts the image quality of the C300 up there with Alexa and Epic. He has used all three, and I would hope we can all agree that he has a discriminating eye. If that's true, then a significant price performance barrier has been broken. The end result is the only thing that is important. This really can't be compared to other 4:2:2 8bit cams given the image that it outputs. It seems that a 4K sensor downscaling to 1080P 422 8bit is a different ball game. If canon is delivering a $50-70K image for $20K, that seems ground breaking to me. And no, the F3 IQ doesn't compare according to Laforet who has used both. Also this is not Digic III as in the DSLR. It's a different animal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top