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

[cowpunk52]

I wouldn't call 50 Mbps MPEG-2 "much more powerful" than 24 Mbps H.264. I would call them the same, as far as compression artifacts. The Canon does have 4:2:2 color subsampling, but that is not technically the codec, it's the color subsampling, and still even if you lumped that in, I wouldn't call it "much more powerful."

In my experience with Canon's XF Codec, it is far superior to any 24 Mbps AVC codec I've compared it to (that would be AF100, FS100, HMC150 & GH2) in terms of compression artifacts and handling high detail, especially with motion - and that's not even mentioning the benefits from color sampling. There's a reason 50Mbps mpeg-2 is broadcast approved 24Mbps h.264 is not. I keep hearing that "theoretically they could perform the same or similar," but I've never seen this to be the case in practise.

I'll do a side by side test when I get some time to demonstrate.

 

[GH2user]

You keep going on about the 8bit not being good enough for post production. But as someone has explained earlier, this is not the same 8bit you get on a 5D. Its captured at 10 or 12 then compressed into a much powerful codec than the H264.

Yes, it's definitely not the same as a 5D... the 5D actually converts the image in 14-bit space. In fact, both the 5D and 7D benefit from 14bit A/D converters. And yes, before you bring it up... it's done right off the sensor, before it goes into H.264. So besides the obvious color-space differences, the DSLRs actually have better A/D conversion.

Also, let me get this straight... 8-bit is now acceptable because it's in an expensive camera that most people cannot afford? Alright got it. Good to know. Keep up the mental gymnastics, they're hilarious to read...

 

[cowpunk52]

the 5D actually converts the image in 14-bit space.

But does so with a processor that's far from optimized for video and clearly performs very poorly at it, from a technological perspective (aesthetics notwithstanding, of course), so who cares? It could be converting in a 32-bit space and it wouldn't make a difference.

Also, let me get this straight... 8-bit is now acceptable because it's in an expensive camera that most people cannot afford?

Nope. 8-bit is acceptable when acquired within a 50Mbps 4:2:2 mpeg2 codec - according to broadcaster in the world, that is. So you don't actually have to take my word for it. Try getting some experience with the codec, you'll be surprised and you also won't be speaking from pure conjecture and speculation. Heck, Sony's F800 records in 8-bit and that camera costs $32,000 with no battery or viewfinder - how come you're not piping up about that injustice?!

Keep up the mental gymnastics, they're hilarious to read...

None required on that one. I think everyone would appreciate it if you wouldn't be so derogatory toward the people interested in this camera.

 

[Rick Burnett]

You cannot in post create more information from 8-bit into 10-bit or 12-bit because the codec or algorithms cannot distinguish between what needs to be dithered and what doesn't. There are real life patterns that would resemble posterization that you wouldn't want this on. That's the problem with down-converting to 8-bit. You are throwing away information when you quantize and you cannot get that information back.

The dithering has to happen in camera. Just like audio when you dither 24-bit down to 16-bit for CD.

The problem is, you DON'T do this until the very last step in audio, because it's mastering, and the noise that gets added, if the audio is adjusted afterwards, contains specially designed (shaped) noise that needs to stay consistent.

The same is true with 8-bit. That's why if the camera is noisy, the gradients look better, but, instead of dealing with posterization occurring from expanding ranges in the image, the noise get's blown up when you raise levels and such. Everything is a trade-off.

8-bit is 8-bit. You can go into photoshop and create an absolutely perfect gradient with 8-bit or 10-bit. Better than ANY camera could produce, since it's perfect, and then mess with the grading of that gradient. THEN you will know what the difference is that people are trying to explain. It's really pretty simple.

If you don't push your footage far, you'll never have a problem. I use 8-bit on the FS100 and AF100 all the time and we are okay with it. I'm not unhappy with 8-bit in the C300 for the sake of the camera, just the price. I've used A LOT worse!

 

[GH2user]

Nope. 8-bit is acceptable when acquired within a 50Mbps 4:2:2 mpeg2 codec - according to broadcaster in the world, that is. So you don't actually have to take my word for it. Try getting some experience with the codec, you'll be surprised and you also won't be speaking from pure conjecture and speculation.

I work with t all the time and there is definitely more banding than the 5D. You can push the colors around more, for sure. But the gradation is still only "alright" at best.

On a side note... Why do people assume that if you're speaking against something, then you're obviously not "in" the industry, and have no idea what your talking about? As if once you're an established professional it's your duty to defend all the "pro" products or something...? I know all these guys here in LA who used to be pretty laid back, but as soon as their dad's friends gave them that union-credit AC job that they didn't earn, they all the sudden have this sense of "enlightenment" or "duty" to uphold the satus-quo. It's a bummer. No wonder the big manufactures can keep selling us old-tech year after year...

 

[Piolet]

Also, let me get this straight... 8-bit is now acceptable because it's in an expensive camera that most people cannot afford? Alright got it. Good to know. Keep up the mental gymnastics, they're hilarious to read...

You sure come up with some convoluted conclusions. It's not hard to understand, 8-bit is acceptable in broadcast television, which is only one possible use for this camera. Here is proof:

Discovery HD Gold, Silver and Bronze Tiers:
http://eyefish.tv/production-guide/...s-requirements/discovery-hd-gold-silver-bronz
HDCAM and DVCPRO HD are both 8-bit and approved up to Gold Level. Only HDCAM SR is 10-bit

BBC Requirements:
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/site/BBC_Approved_HD_Cameras.pdf
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/tv_delivery_to_network_programmes_v1.2-2011.pdf

EBU Technical Recommendations for Choice of HDTV Compression Algorithm nad Bitrate for Acquistion, Production and Distribution
http://tech.ebu.ch/webdav/site/tech/shared/r/r124.pdf

For acquisition of mainstream HD material, it is recommended that

• The acquistion format should use 4:2:2 sampling
• No futher horizontal or vertical sub-sampling should be applied
• 8-bit bit-depth is sufficient for mainstream programme (10-bit bit-depth is preferred for high-end acquisition).

Expert viewing tests have further revealed that:

• A 10-bit bit-depth in production is only significant for post-production with graphics, and after transmission encoding and decoding at the consumer if the content, e.g. graphics or animation, has been generated using advance colour grading, etc.
• For normal moving pictures, an 8-bit depth in production will not significantly degrade the HD picture quality at the consumer's premises.

 

[cowpunk52]

8-bit is 8-bit. You can go into photoshop and create an absolutely perfect gradient with 8-bit or 10-bit. Better than ANY camera could produce, since it's perfect, and then mess with the grading of that gradient. THEN you will know what the difference is that people are trying to explain. It's really pretty simple.

It's not that no one get's it, Rick. People interested in using the C300 don't need to be constantly berated about this whole 8-bit vs 10-bit issue. We get it - 10 bits is more information than 8 bits. Done, mental note, check.

Moving on.

I work with broadcast-accepted 8-bit footage nearly every day of my working professional life. I push it around in post, I do green screen and heavy special effects - it looks great, it holds up just fine, and I've never had a problem getting it out to broadcast. A couple of weeks ago I was working on Joss Whedon's latest feature; we shot on 2 Epics, but the C camera was a Canon 7D. It was able to get shots that no other camera could have, and no one gave a rat's butt that it was 8-bit. This is exactly the niche that the C300 would fit perfectly in.

XXit had a tremendous amount of special effects and color work done to it, probably more than almost any forum member here will ever do, and I don't recall anyone having problems with the 8-bit sampling that it's source footage was captured in when they watched it.

People that understand 8-bit and aren't bothered by price points and are still excited about using the camera are going to use it. People that aren't satisfied with it can move on to whatever camera they want to, and it would be nice if insults could be avoided. Nobody is doing mental gymnastics or trying to justify things to themselves here, even if it's giving some forum members a good laugh.

 

[cowpunk52]

I work with t all the time and there is definitely more banding than the 5D. You can push the colors around more, for sure. But the gradation is still only "alright" at best.

screenshot comparison?

 

[Nuno Dias]

@GH2user, listen, I'm not sure why it is that you are so passionate about scrutinizing tech specs on this camera. You probably know this, but I'll say it anyway, your (cracked) GH2 has awesome specs, but no one is using it to shoot anything that involves a budget, time and an end product. Not in the same number as Canon or Red is anyway.

You know why?

It doesn't look good.

Not for 'film like' images anyway. It can't handle highlights and the curve is not that beautiful. So, what matters to me (as a director) is, how good or cinematic is my footage going to look like? How will it handle the lighting style we're shooting, how textured the image is, and so on...

Its all about how 'sexy' the image is. Meaning, how is the sensor designed. You can have all the specs you want, but if the image is anything like the GH2, you'll find no one shooting with it. Unless, the director or DP doesn't mind having a film that looks like it was shot on DigiBeta...

I'm not saying a GH2 or any other camera is obsolete. At all. Its just that I personally, don't believe in it. I have a responsibility to my clients that when they pay north of 200 thousand dollars for a spot, that it will look good. That's a given. That can never be even an issue.

That's how I think about gear. Can I trust it? Not just technically, but mainly, can I trust its image? I trusted the 5D to make expensive commercials, and it was never even an issue. There were plenty of features screened at Sundance this year that were shot on the 7D, and are now on the way to your local theater. But I would never, ever even consider using a GH2 to do what I do. In this scenario, its specs are just obsolete. But for anybody else, doing any other kind of job, I'm sure the GH2 has a place.

As the C300 does. And it will. Believe me. Now, please move on from the 8bit issue. Amuse us with something new, please!

 

[GH2user]

@GH2user, listen, I'm not sure why it is that you are so passionate about scrutinizing tech specs on this camera.

I thought that was just the norm these days. I mean, everyone was doing it to steer people away from DSLRs when their $60k varicam footage started looking sub-par. The 5D/7D had moire and a bit of aliasing... so what? People beat H.264 and 8-bit to death when it's on a $2000 consumer camera that the masses can afford... but now it's suddenly ok because it was "implemented" for professional application on a camera that's only affordable on a studio budget. People are just throwing syntax around.

It doesn't look good.

Not for 'film like' images anyway. It can't handle highlights and the curve is not that beautiful. So, what matters to me (as a director) is, how good or cinematic is my footage going to look like? How will it handle the lighting style we're shooting, how textured the image is, and so on...

I dunno about that, this video looks pretty darn film-like... or at least allot like how Red footage looks.

http://vimeo.com/26818589

I think it's all in the lensing. The Lumix and Olympus lenses people use seem to have more of a video look to them. But Canon or Nikon glass looks great when you get an adapter for it.

 

[cowpunk52]

The 5D/7D had moire and a bit of aliasing... so what? People beat H.264 and 8-bit to death when it's on a $2000 consumer camera... but now it's suddenly ok because it was "implemented" for professional application. People are just throwing syntax around.

The moire and aliasing in DSLR's was never caused by h.264 or 8-bit color sampling. And speaking for myself, and many other shooters, the moire, aliasing & low resolution performance were the cause of the largest complaints about DSLR image quality.

 

[cowpunk52]

Come on, guys - this isn't a GH2 thread. Let's stay on topic.

 

[Ian-T]

@GH2user, listen, I'm not sure why it is that you are so passionate about scrutinizing tech specs on this camera. You probably know this, but I'll say it anyway, your (cracked) GH2 has awesome specs, but no one is using it to shoot anything that involves a budget, time and an end product. Not in the same number as Canon or Red is anyway.

You know why?

It doesn't look good.

Not for 'film like' images anyway. It can't handle highlights and the curve is not that beautiful. So, what matters to me (as a director) is, how good or cinematic is my footage going to look like? How will it handle the lighting style we're shooting, how textured the image is, and so on...

Its all about how 'sexy' the image is. Meaning, how is the sensor designed. You can have all the specs you want, but if the image is anything like the GH2, you'll find no one shooting with it. Unless, the director or DP doesn't mind having a film that looks like it was shot on DigiBeta...

I'm not saying a GH2 or any other camera is obsolete. At all. Its just that I personally, don't believe in it. I have a responsibility to my clients that when they pay north of 200 thousand dollars for a spot, that it will look good. That's a given. That can never be even an issue.

That's how I think about gear. Can I trust it? Not just technically, but mainly, can I trust its image? I trusted the 5D to make expensive commercials, and it was never even an issue. There were plenty of features screened at Sundance this year that were shot on the 7D, and are now on the way to your local theater. But I would never, ever even consider using a GH2 to do what I do. In this scenario, its specs are just obsolete. But for anybody else, doing any other kind of job, I'm sure the GH2 has a place.

As the C300 does. And it will. Believe me. Now, please move on from the 8bit issue. Amuse us with something new, please!

This whole post was all emotional and unnecessary.

 

[mico]

It's not that no one get's it, Rick. People interested in using the C300 don't need to be constantly berated about this whole 8-bit vs 10-bit issue. We get it - 10 bits is more information than 8 bits. Done, mental note, check.

Moving on.

I work with broadcast-accepted 8-bit footage nearly every day of my working professional life. I push it around in post, I do green screen and heavy special effects - it looks great, it holds up just fine, and I've never had a problem getting it out to broadcast. A couple of weeks ago I was working on Joss Whedon's latest feature; we shot on 2 Epics, but the C camera was a Canon 7D. It was able to get shots that no other camera could have, and no one gave a rat's butt that it was 8-bit. This is exactly the niche that the C300 would fit perfectly in.

XXit had a tremendous amount of special effects and color work done to it, probably more than almost any forum member here will ever do, and I don't recall anyone having problems with the 8-bit sampling that it's source footage was captured in when they watched it.

People that understand 8-bit and aren't bothered by price points and are still excited about using the camera are going to use it. People that aren't satisfied with it can move on to whatever camera they want to, and it would be nice if insults could be avoided. Nobody is doing mental gymnastics or trying to justify things to themselves here, even if it's giving some forum members a good laugh.

Thanks cowpunk for keeping it real world informative.

 

[StMad]

This whole post was all emotional and unnecessary.

Though he wasnt wrong when he said that DR plays a large role in separating these cameras. The new Canon seems very nice in this respect.

 

[GH2user]

Thanks cowpunk for keeping it real world informative.

Sometimes it seems as if the real (I assume industry) world is more fantasy-land than anything else. Most "standards" from what I can tell, are more about keeping business flowing to certain people and organizations... than about actually upholding quality.

Note: that is not an insult directed at anyone in particular. It's just an observation on the whole...

 

[Nuno Dias]

This whole post was all emotional and unnecessary.

I'm emotional. That's how I roll!

 

[Nuno Dias]

Our business is divided by two different kinds of species. Creative people and producers!

Directors, DPs, Art Directors, Writers, Editors, etc... only have one single final goal in mind; to make it look/sound/feel good, to provide a great experience to the audience. Producers, on the other hand, have two things in mind; to make money and come on the cover of the local press. Unless he's a good producer... in which case he will know that if he disdains the quality of the film, his life will be over too soon.

A good producer should know quality from mediocrity. But most actually don't. As well as creative people should be aware that the world doesn't revolve around them, they are only a small part of the bigger picture. But saying that, a good director is nothing without a good producer, same the other way round.

Its actually the older relationship in the world, opposites need each other.

And that's how our business goes. Some people get it, some don't.

(Sorry to go off topic)

 

[GH2user]

@Nuno Dias

Yea... that all makes sense. But I really don't know how that has anything to do with camera manufactures "holding back technology vs. justified pricing." ???

 

[mico]

Sometimes it seems as if the real (I assume industry) world is more fantasy-land than anything else. Most "standards" from what I can tell, are more about keeping business flowing to certain people and organizations... than about actually upholding quality.

Note: that is not an insult directed at anyone in particular. It's just an observation on the whole...

I happen to working on the new Batman movie and most of it is shot on Imax film cameras and its inherent above average quality. Thats Nolans decision and everyone is entitled to choose what they deem quality. Its not always some conspiracy.