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

[Nuno Dias]

Lee, why all the hate? Just because you say so, it doesn't make it so. You should try to stop putting all these artificial facts in your head. You don't like the camera that's fine. Assuming for whatever reason that this is a lower cost model, its nonsense. Show me a 20K camera that has the C300 image quality, sharpness, highlight shoulder and filmic granular/organic noise?

There isn't one.

And show me a camera with the C300's friendly/fast/universal workflow?

There isn't one.

This is literally a camera out of the box, ready to shoot and onto your laptop with an image quality and power unmatched by any sub 20K camera.

 

[combatentropy]

I agree with Lee. I don't think he's saying it's a bad camera. But it brings up the question, if the C300 is $20,000, and Canon wants to do a $10,000 or $5,000 model, what features will they take away from the C300?

 

[Nuno Dias]

Its not all about features. A cheaper camera? Start with a not-as-good sensor. That should make it cheaper. The ultimate factor is and always was, image quality/performance.

 

[Max Smith]

Lee, why all the hate? Just because you say so, it doesn't make it so. You should try to stop putting all these artificial facts in your head. You don't like the camera that's fine. Assuming for whatever reason that this is a lower cost model, its nonsense. Show me a 20K camera that has the C300 image quality, sharpness, highlight shoulder and filmic granular/organic noise?

There isn't one.

And show me a camera with the C300's friendly/fast/universal workflow?

There isn't one.

This is literally a camera out of the box, ready to shoot and onto your laptop with an image quality and power unmatched by any sub 20K camera.

I can't comment on 'filmic granular organic noise,' but the Sony F3 with S-Log which is 10 bit and can shoot 1080 60p seems to be a bit more bang for the buck to me. Not hating the C300- it seems to make a great image- but it's got some serious limitations for the price.

 

[cowpunk52]

I agree with Lee. I don't think he's saying it's a bad camera. But it brings up the question, if the C300 is $20,000, and Canon wants to do a $10,000 or $5,000 model, what features will they take away from the C300?

A lower price model might exclude:

• Genlock
• HD-SDI
• Broadcast Approved XF Codec (probably use AVCHD on SD cards instead, like the XA10)
• ND Filters
• Removable Monitor & XLR module
• ultra high ISO's
• removable handles
• LOG Gamma
• Wireless Transmitter Capability
• PL mount version

Additionally, it could have a recycled sensor from a next-gen DSLR rather than the custom-built S35 sensor from the C300. This could be done possibly to be able to produce higher-quality stills as a result, but that also means a weaker OLPF and thus aliasing. Or maybe it will have an appropriately strong OLPF, but less resolution due to debayering (like the current crop of sub-$10k large sensor cameras suffer from).

These are just guesses, though - but make no mistake, many features will be stripped to bring it more into the market of an AF100 or FS100. As long as the image quality is good, which I'm sure it will be, it won't be hard to compete with those cameras. And as an added feature, maybe it will have autofocus for EOS lenses because that's something a lot of the low-budget market wants.

There's no guarantee that any of this will happen, or that a cheaper camera than the C300 will ever be made.

 

[cowpunk52]

Not hating the C300- it seems to make a great image- but it's got some serious limitations for the price.

It's important to remember that we don't know what that price is. Canon's official word is "under $20k and final pricing TBA." F3 + SLog + Gemini is almost $23,000 at minimum and takes up a lot of weight, power & real estate. Further, because of the debayering that the F3 has to do, it's almost guaranteed to have more aliasing and moire artifacts than the C300. Are those extra 30 frames per second at 1080 resolution worth that cost? Every production has to answer that question on it's own - it's definitely not a black and white answer.

 

[Grug]

I can't comment on 'filmic granular organic noise,' but the Sony F3 with S-Log which is 10 bit and can shoot 1080 60p seems to be a bit more bang for the buck to me. Not hating the C300- it seems to make a great image- but it's got some serious limitations for the price.

The F3 doesn't do 60p either, and once you add the cost of SLOG to the F3 it becomes more expensive than the C300 (at least here in Australia) and it's still an 8-bit camera recording to a non-broadcast codec unless you fork out a further $1500 (at a minimum) for an external recorder.

I agree with Nuno, I think a lot of the outrage over the Canon pricing is kinda undeserved - the F3 is the only comparable camera going around, and that'll cost you pretty much the same money (once you add SLOG to bring it up to a similar level of performance), the Scarlet has so many hidden costs before you'd actually be able to shoot and edit footage with it, that it's at least the same cost as the C300. So why all the outrage? It's clearly a level above the FS100 and AF100 and yet people insist it should be priced at near the same level.

Granted, if the camera had a list price closer to $10k it would genuinely be revolutionary and people would buy it by the bucketload. But what it does for the money still justifies itself I think.

I'm feeling sorely tempted by the Scarlet personally (it's almost exactly the camera I wanted and was predicting, a limited feature Epic), but the more I look at it, the harder it becomes to justify. I don't have the means to easily edit 4K RAW footage, and beyond the flexibility for reframing, panning and zooming I don't really have any need for the extra resolution. Indeed the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the low-light performance of a C300 or F3 would actually be more beneficial to me than the benefits the Scarlet could offer.

And as much as people rag on about the specs of these cameras, the simple fact is that the footage from stock F3s and C300 looks fantastic even projected up on large cinema screens. You can argue that the ultimate picture quality is less than that of higher-end codecs but is it something clients are likely to be able to notice at this level of image quality? I seriously doubt it.

There's a point of 'good enough' with images (motion and still), at which you can say "that'll do, it's good enough" - and these cameras have reached that point, and at a price level that no one even imagined just a few years ago.

 

[Max Smith]

It's important to remember that we don't know what that price is. Canon's official word is "under $20k and final pricing TBA." F3 + SLog + Gemini is almost $23,000 at minimum and takes up a lot of weight, power & real estate. Further, because of the debayering that the F3 has to do, it's almost guaranteed to have more aliasing and moire artifacts than the C300. Are those extra 30 frames per second worth that cost? Every production has to answer that question on it's own - it's definitely not a black and white answer.

If Rick is right- and his breakdown seems to be comprehensive enough that I'm willing to take his word for it until somone proves otherwise- the C300 has its own form of debayering. Does it have a better, cleaner image than an F3 with S-Log? No one knows. We won't until someone like Zacuto gets ahold of both cameras and does a shoot out. If I were a betting man however, I'd bet they are pretty similar at 24p with the F3 having an edge for color depth and no comparison at 60p.

And it's not just the extra 30 frames, it's the 8-bit vs 10-bit which is not insignificant when you get into post. That's a way bigger deal to me than the 1080 60p.

Again, I'm not saying the C300 sucks and the F3 with S-Log is the end-all-be-all of cameras, but there seems to be a significant feature difference for what- as of now- is not as significant a price difference.

 

[Searcher]

In case people miss this little bit of information again:

It's important to remember that we don't know what that price is. Canon's official word is "under $20k and final pricing TBA."

 

[Max Smith]

The F3 doesn't do 60p either, and once you add the cost of SLOG to the F3 it becomes more expensive than the C300 (at least here in Australia) and it's still an 8-bit camera recording to a non-broadcast codec unless you fork out a further $1500 (at a minimum) for an external recorder.

I agree with Nuno, I think a lot of the outrage over the Canon pricing is kinda undeserved - the F3 is the only comparable camera going around, and that'll cost you pretty much the same money (once you add SLOG to bring it up to a similar level of performance), the Scarlet has so many hidden costs before you'd actually be able to shoot and edit footage with it, that it's at least the same cost as the C300. So why all the outrage? It's clearly a level above the FS100 and AF100 and yet people insist it should be priced at near the same level.

Granted, if the camera had a list price closer to $10k it would genuinely be revolutionary and people would buy it by the bucketload. But what it does for the money still justifies itself I think.

I'm feeling sorely tempted by the Scarlet personally (it's almost exactly the camera I wanted and was predicting, a limited feature Epic), but the more I look at it, the harder it becomes to justify. I don't have the means to easily edit 4K RAW footage, and beyond the flexibility for reframing, panning and zooming I don't really have any need for the extra resolution. Indeed the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that the low-light performance of a C300 or F3 would actually be more beneficial to me than the benefits the Scarlet could offer.

And as much as people rag on about the specs of these cameras, the simple fact is that the footage from stock F3s and C300 looks fantastic even projected up on large cinema screens. You can argue that the ultimate picture quality is less than that of higher-end codecs but is it something clients are likely to be able to notice at this level of image quality? I seriously doubt it.

There's a point of 'good enough' with images (motion and still), at which you can say "that'll do, it's good enough" - and these cameras have reached that point, and at a price level that no one even imagined just a few years ago.

The thing is, out of the box the F3 is an 8-bit 1080p camera. Adding S-Log doesn't 'bring it up to similar performance,' it makes it a 10 bit 4:4:4 camera that can shoot 1080 60p. Which seems to be a much more robust camera... for about the same price.

If the C300 were priced the same as an F3 without S-Log it would make more sense to me. Except, even then, you can always upgrade the Sony... so yeah, maybe a little cheaper.

 

[Lee Saxon]

Show me a 20K camera that has the C300 image quality, sharpness, highlight shoulder and filmic granular/organic noise?
There isn't one.
And show me a camera with the C300's friendly/fast/universal workflow?
There isn't one.
This is literally a camera out of the box, ready to shoot and onto your laptop with an image quality and power unmatched by any sub 20K camera.

It sounds like the camera is worth $20k to you, which is fine. As has been pointed out, I never said it was a bad camera. But just because you're willing to pay $20k doesn't mean you should have to.

Your points don't really relate to my suspicion that, given the "mature" technology being used, $20k must represent obscene-to-the-point-of-unethical profit margin.

 

[cowpunk52]

Adding S-Log doesn't 'bring it up to similar performance,' it makes it a 10 bit 4:4:4 camera that can shoot 1080 60p. Which seems to be a much more robust camera...

If you want to be semantic about it, adding the $3600 S-Log upgrade only gives you the potential for 10-bit 4:4:4 at 1080p60. It'll be another minimum $7000 upgrade (gemini, 1 ssd drive, power) before you can actually get that out of the camera.

 

[yoclay]

The C300 is 8 bit 4.2.2. Sorry that's crap for 20K. Wake up and smell the coffee Nuno.

You start pushing around the curves in post like I have and you will know exactly what I am talking about. Clumping noise. That's not "organic", it's not high ISO and it's not vimeo compression, it's 8 bit garbage. Look at 2:43 in Laforet's video and you will know exactly what I am talking about.

Read the writing on the wall. If they haven't done it at 20k they aren't going to do it for their DLR's to come.

NO 10 BIT FOR ANYONE.

Until 3 years from now, when they sell us the camera they could have sold today without breaking a sweat.

And frankly that just sucks. Enjoy your crippled camera when you get it.

 

[cowpunk52]

If I were a betting man however, I'd bet they are pretty similar at 24p with the F3 having an edge for color depth and no comparison at 60p.

Actually, given what we know about the moire and aliasing performance of the F3 (http://www.xdcam-user.com/2011/03/pmw-f3-aliasing-and-moire), and what we know about how the C300 sensor performs, I'd be pleased as punch to take up that bet.

Regarding how the C300 sensor works, these are quotes from Adam Wilt's overview of the C300 on Pro Video Coalition:

• The sensor "gives you an honest 4:4:4 at HD’s 1920x1080 resolution."
• "A quad-HD sensor decoded in this manner yields precisely 1920x1080 full-color [4:4:4] samples. Thus, this camera is optimized for 1920x1080 HD output and recording"
• "In any event it’s whoops better than the line-skipping seen in various DSLRs, and may well give a naturally crisper and more alias-free image that other LSS cameras with lower-resolution, deBayered sensors."
• "I paid special attention to hair detail, especially flyaway strands against the sky in the closing scenes. It all looked good, with no visible aliasing, no anisomorphic detail, no stairstepping, fringing, or chroma moiré."

 

[maarek]

You start pushing around the curves in post like I have and you will know exactly what I am talking about.

Funny thing is, nowadays nobody is pushing curves around. The most I see is everybody just bringing the blacks up and whites down. Where are the huge curve adjustments you speak of? I did not see anything wrong with 2:43 in Laforets video.

 

[cowpunk52]

The C300 is 8 bit 4.2.2. Sorry that's crap for 20K. Wake up and smell the coffee Nuno.

You should probably send a note to Sony quick! They've got a bunch of 8 bit 4:2:2 cameras that they're trying to sell for $30,000 - and those things only have 2/3" sensors!!!! I even saw an 8-bit 4:2:0 camera going for $20k with a codec that's not even acceptable for HD broadcast! Scandalous, don't you think?

You start pushing around the curves in post like I have and you will know exactly what I am talking about. Clumping noise. That's not "organic", it's not high ISO and it's not vimeo compression, it's 8 bit garbage. Look at 2:43 in Laforet's video and you will know exactly what I am talking about.

You're going to have to elaborate on this - you're making blanket statements based on a Vimeo compressed file? And when did you start pushing around Laforet's footage in post? When you start working on C300 footage and it's not up to your standards, you can complain then.

Enjoy your crippled camera when you get it.

Are you taking personal offense to people being excited about the creative possibilities this camera opens up to them? Because that's what it sounds like. No one is forcing you to use it, grade it, push it around, or complain about it's theoretical performance that you have no first hand knowledge of.

 

[yoclay]

I don't take personal offense at any of it.

Canon has released an 8bit 4.2.2 camera for 20K. That is signifigantly underwhelming thank you very much.

As a matter of fact I do have 1st hand experience of this camera as of yesterday, at SATIS in Paris, France.

I have seen the footage. I have seen the camera, and no I am not particularly impressed.

Canon had the possibility to offer so much more and they chose to go with a marketing plan to reel out little by little what you and I already can have elsewhere today.

Even the rep knew exactly what I was talking about when I addressed this, he kept saying "but this is only the beginning, we are committed, etc."

Ok, so let's speak when Canon has decided to get over trying to selling us 8 bit technology and has started to address the professional concerns of post production.

Dont believe the hype.

 

[Piolet]

As a matter of fact I do have 1st hand experience of this camera as of yesterday, at SATIS in Paris, France.

I have seen the footage. I have seen the camera, and no I am not particularly impressed.

Can you give specifics? What were you disappointed about regarding camera design and the footage? It's always good to hear differing opinions.

 

[Erich Ocean]

The C300 is 8 bit 4.2.2. Sorry that's crap for 20K. Wake up and smell the coffee Nuno.

I'm pretty certain that none of you saying stuff like this have the slightest clue how MPEG-2 compression works. Yes, the HDMI and HD-SDI output is 8-bit, but MPEG-2 is a more complicated beast. It's not just, hey I started with uncompressed 8-bit, and then I compressed it. It's more like, I started with 10- or 12-bit and the compressed it. During decompression, far more bits than 8 are required to produce the final image.

A high-quality 4:2:2 MPEG-2 implementation at 50 Mbit is insanely good. Calling it 8-bit "crap" is just not credible. That's not how MPEG-2 works; it's not a valid way of even thinking about the problem.

The only thing that matters is the image. Every. Single. Person. Who has examined the C300's images, in critical viewing environments, and on the big screen, in RAVING about the camera, for the price. The consensus is that it's at the F3 range and makes a killer B-cam to the Alexa, and an amazingly good A-cam for budget-conscious indies like Like Crazy and when a smaller rig is needed.

Canon is going to both sell a ton of these things, and it's going to rent like crazy. The overall system is extremely well thought out, especially compared to the Scarlet. To get anywhere near the image quality with the F3, you have to add bulky external recorders, which just sucks.

Anyway, my $.02.

 

[cowpunk52]

Canon had the possibility to offer so much more and they chose to go with a marketing plan to reel out little by little what you and I already can have elsewhere today.

Show me a S35 camera where I can get a razor-sharp 1080p picture on a broadcast approved in-camera codec, with no aliasing or moire, in a body only about twice the size of a DSLR, that weighs just 3.2lbs, and includes standard features of LOG gamma, removable handles, removable monitor & XLR module and uses just 12W of power for under $20k and I'd be inclined to agree.

Dont believe the hype.

It's not hype that I'm impressed by, it's performance. And I saw a tremendous amount of it at Paramount on Nov 3rd.

Ok, so let's speak when Canon has decided to get over trying to selling us 8 bit technology and has started to address the professional concerns of post production.

Thanks for your contributions to the thread! Those of us that are interested in actually using this camera can now discuss in peace.