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

Status
Not open for further replies.
What excites me about this camera is what it delivers in it's most basic configuration. Holding it in my hands simply felt right, & ready to work.

No need for an external recorder, & battery, no need for an external EVF, just pull it out of the case, & get to work.

I'm waiting to see real world comparisons against the other options before committing, but if it lacks the chroma clipping of the F3, FS100, & AF100, I'll most likely buy in.
 
Last edited:
Piolet said:
Ok, time to get this thread back on track. I suggest ignoring any post that appear to be troll bait.

I found another interview with Larry Thorpe, courtesy of HD Magazine. This one is a 13 minute audio interview: http://www.definitionmagazine.com/j...y-thorpe-on-the-c300s-design-and-origins.html

Some highlights:

0:00 Talks about the sensor and how it works. Lots of technical details
2:22 Talks about the processor
3:11 Goes into why HD-SDI isn't 10 bit
4:00 "We will move from that [8-bit] in future cameras that we have planned."
5:12 Tells story of how he got involved in the camera
6:15 Talks about the camera's origin and development
8:14 Talks about the EOS and video divisions
8:45 Explains why there are two separate, fixed lens mounts
10:40 Explains Canon's strategy and reasoning behind the C300
12:37 Politely talks about competitor's cameras
13:45 "[The C300] is not the next generation. We are very aware of what the next generations are in codecs and things like that. You can be sure down the road we will be playing with things like that."

I like how Larry seem very honest and frank. This guy really is a legend in the HD television world. Canon is in good hands with this guy on board.

I've edit the original post of this thread to consolidate links to all the interviews. I hope these interviews have been informative. So many times people ask, "Why did do this? What were they thinking?" and here we get a rare glimpse into why.
Click to expand...

Good find. Excellent interview with Larry Thorpe. People need to listen to this before they go off on some tangent about 422 8 bit not being good enough. As Larry said this is pristine 422 8 bit. They've done all their processing at 444 12+ bit and then dropped it down to a codec that is the broadcast standard and friendly to work with. ASC DPs have worked with it, graded it, and they have not reported any issues in that process after Canon asked them to throw everything they have at it. After my research of the AF100, FS100 and Scarlet X, the C300 seems like a no brainer to me with it's superb sensor, built in S LOG, easy codec to work with, form factor of the camera, and it doesn't hurt that people that have worked with it are throwing terms like "Alexa like" around about its image :-). After its release, we'll probably see a street price of about $15-16K. That's still steep. I'll have to see where my lust level is at that time.
 
Haha.. the only camera that's alexa like.... is the alexa.

Seriously. The c300/F3 are n a close third behind the F65 for "beauty".

To my eye anyway.
 
Ok, lets try this:

Here are a series of frame grabs from the following cameras; C300, Epic and Sony F3. Just so I can present more clearly what I do like so much about the C300's image.

- The highlights don't clip, even when there is a hot spot in the frame. (Epic is really bad at this... so is the f3, but judge for yourselves)
- The shadows also don't disappear into blackness without a smooth transition, as opposed to the Epic's very short curve.
- The image is much more creamy and textured (similar to that of film) than either the F3 or the Epic.

So I would assume that the 20K + Scarlet, won't perform much different than its much costier EPIC...

Just to exemplify why will this camera be very welcomed among film makers, it looks very good, despite its seemingly 'weak' specs...




'SWORD'
C300 - See how the windows are not clipped, and all the way down to the dark lower left side of his jacket.
There's a smooth dynamic curve throughout the shot.

C300.jpg


'MOBIUS'
C300 - Again, even with the sun in shot, the highlights don't clip, and again, we can see all the way
down to the back of his neck, which is completely in shadow.

C300b.jpg


'CHIM CHIM CHE-REE'
EPIC - Look at that ugly looking highlight, and how fast the curve goes into the mid tones,
and the dark area of the shot, its just steep into blackness.

Epic.jpg


'CHIM CHIM CHE-REE'
EPIC - Highlight problem again. The sun isn't even in the shot and look at the clipping in his hat!

Epicb.jpg


'WORLD'S FIRST S-LOG TEST'
SONY F3 (S-LOG) - There's that clipping again...

F3.jpg

​



Again, this is personal opinion. Its what I like to see in an image. It might not be what you like. But I believe these pictures really speak from themselves.

And this is by no means a test! Just speculation really... because these are all grabbed from the internet, and each film is graded differently, but it shows nonetheless the much talked about problems in digital cameras; the highlights and the shoulder curves, that in these examples, the C300 seems to hold up better than any of the other two cameras.

Credits:
Canon C300 - Sword, by Felix Alcala - http://cinemaeos.usa.canon.com/ &
Mobius, by Vincent LaForet - http://vimeo.com/31525127
EPIC - Cim Chim Che-Ree, by Philip Bloom - http://philipbloom.net/2011/11/11/amarillo/
Sony F3 - World's First S-Log Test, by Next Level Pictures - http://vimeo.com/22540499
 
Last edited:
I shot that last clip.

We dkdnt know how to use log at the time... use a better example. I'll pull one from the feature I just shot.
 
It's impossible to judge without seeing side-by-side comparisons of the cameras shooting the same subjects in the same lighting.

Of the shots posted, I do think that the first C300 shot looks the best, but there are parts of the windows that are clipped and just looking at the shot we cannot tell how controlled the lighting was.

The Epic shots look like they might have been done in completely natural light.
 
Sure, but what I'm looking at in these shots is the highlights, and how the cameras hold up to them, might they be natural or artificial. Its also about the shadows, and how the sensor is able to read down the scale. These comparisons have nothing to do with lighting conditions or style, just the pure highlight/shadows detail, that's all.
 
I have used the Alexa and the Red One (with and without MX sensor, and that might count close to the Epic) and Sony F900. But mostly I have been shooting on film (35mm) for the past 8 years. Why would I have used the C300? its not even for sale! I haven't used the F3 because I didn't want to use it on any job yet. Preferred the 5D... But I have used the F35 and it was very good, also used the Genesis, but still prefer the F35.

Best of them all so far? Alexa. By a mile. But that's just me.
 
TimurCivan said:
Those shot are all graded. The "clipping" was determned by the colorist.
Click to expand...

Doubt that any colorist would specifically go for clipping (that's like asking an actor to say an unscripted bad line!).... especially on different films by different film makers!
 
Last edited:
At the risk of being anal, I'm posting a couple more examples of what I consider to be a 'week' sensor. As there seems to be a lot of talk about specs and how decise they are in the overall image quality... but as we know, when it comes to specs there is one winner only, the Red. But as you will see, the specs amount to very little when the sensor is not well designed in the first place.

Again, highlights are digital cameras worst enemy. And on these two frame grabs from the latest Red Mysterium X shot film 'Contagion' I couldn't stop noticing when watching it a t the cinema, its clipped highlights, over and over.

Then follows three other frame grabs, this time shot by the Alexa, same photographic/lighting challenge, window back light. But on these Alexa films, the highlights, although blown out to pure white, never clip! This shows how powerful the sensor is. And I seemed to get the same feeling from the C300, but I can't be sure on that, since I haven't shot with it.

And no, this is not something you 'fix' with gelling the windows with NDs, its not about that, its about how does the sensor perform when pushed to the limits. And clearly, the Red's sensor cracks down very rapidly. So, I ask, if this is what I get when shooting on the Red, what does it serve me the 4K, the 12bit, etc...?

So, my conclusion? If the sensor is not an ass kicker, the rest is as good as thin air. Its like having a Ferrari with a VW Beetle engine!



RED ONE (with MX Sensor)

Red.jpg


RED ONE (with MX Sensor)

Red2.jpg


ALEXA (In Time)

Alexa.jpg


ALEXA (Anonymous)

Alexa2.jpg


ALEXA (Anonymous)

Alexa3.jpg
​
 
I have to say, I just saw Anonymous last weekend, and was blown away by how amazing it looked. I had just assumed it was film, though, but now to find out it was shot on the Alexa...wow...

Of course, wardrobe, lighting and production design played a strong part and were all top notch as well.
 
Nuno Dias, I like the Alexa more than the RED, but you have to admit you picked really bad examples of RED cinematography.
 
Please tell me witch other examples I should get and I will. I'm not on a mission to anything, just trying to understand things.

My recollection is that every time I see a film shot on Red, there is something about it that looks odd, the highlights are always a problem and the overall look is not 'textured' and is far too compressed and cold. I know this is personal taste, but I also know that there are serious issues with the Red's sensor.

As this is my job, how I earn my living, I need to know how much I can rely on specs or, if on the other hand I need to understand and study more about sensor design and its architecture, because as of now, it sure seems like specs are not what its all about...

The Alexa has surprisingly simple specs but it delivers an almost perfect picture, to my eye enyway, it goes along way from the Red, which has amazingly powerful specs...

So, again, I wonder if Canon is not one step ahead of us all... by building a powerful sensor from scratch, and not giving in to the pissing contest of tech specs... because, from what I saw so far, it really is that good.
 
Last edited:
haha nuno, sorry, but your comparisons are ridiculous. you can make any camera look fantastic or crappy with these methods. stop that.
http://vimeo.com/28581316 . terrible highlights in this alexa video too. doesn't mean anything.
peter jackson, lars von trier, david fincher, ridley scott, brian singer, baz luhrmann, soderbergh, ....., can choose any camera they want to shoot, and they took a red, it must not be as crappy as you say i guess.
 
To be fair Nuno, almost everything I've seen from Soderbergh shot on Red (Contagion, The Informant!) has looked horribly video-ish. So I'm not sure those last samples are a very fair example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top