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

[cowpunk52]

Just made a thread in the Canon forum that includes a download link for native MXF 16,000 ISO footage shot with a C300 on the show floor from the announcement at Paramount:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?267248-C300-16-000-ISO-frame-grabs-amp-hj-link-to-download-MXF-file

And, just for the record, I was at the announcement as well and had the exact opposite reaction of BobbyMurcerFan - and I watched all 5 film presentations in the Paramount Theatre a couple of times.

 

[Piolet]

That set was very dark in real life. ISO 16,000 makes it look much brighter than it really was. Notice the windows have a fine grating in them (0:26). When he zooms out to wide and pans, you don't see any moire.

indiawilds, I was also the event and I disagree with BobbyMurceFan. I saw Mobius and XXIT in the main theartre and neither looked blocky or washed out. Mobius was shot in the Mojave desert and the last scene in XXIT is in the Yosemite Valley, both very constrasty locations. I saw Swords in the smaller presentation room and it was indeed very noisy in some scenes but they intentionally shot at some of the highest ISO levels available. Btw, one of the forum members here has ordered the C300 so we'll hopefully get even more footage when he gets it.

 

[yoclay]

Just for the record there are many ways of remedying a clipped image. This is absolutely true what Rick is saying. One of the easiest ways is to look at all the channels and see in which there continues to be information and either emphasizing that channel or copying it over into the others while applying a varying degree of blur and density depending on which you are working in.

However, there is a BIG difference between clipping and OVEREXPOSURE. I think the term clipping is being bandied around a little too much here.

Clipping is NOT overexposing by two or three stops in relation to the total scene and then wondering why one cannot recover the highlights. Blown highlights are not the same thing at all. That is simply poor metering, lighting and exposure choice or an actual aesthetic decision.

Clipping is when you have a sudden hard shoulder in response to the normal DR of a scene, either in the highlights or the shadows.

Given the actual nature of output from the Epic, it is highly unlikely that a clip is not recoverable. All the info is there, because you have latitude far beyond what is actually being represented on the screen if you exposed correctly. What is not recoverable is a poor exposure choice in a scene with a high contrast ratio.

Which is why 10 bit and 4.4.4 counts and why a camera with a crippled bit rate is problematic, even if that camera happens to have a relatively high dynamic range or recorderd that information at the outset and then later threw it away to accommodate a mid-level codec.

 

[BobbyMurcerFan]

indiawilds,

I must have been in the main theatre. It was huge and full. The film that I saw had something to do with a girl, her father and a sword. The entire film was rather horrible. The slow motion looked like very bad TV. The highlights were blown-out in quite a few shots, there was mosquito noise and blocking. I also saw Laforet talk about "Mobius" and watched him comment on some footage. It looked better, but not blow you away amazing.

I contrast that to watching Red's Epic 700 reel at Red Studios on a 4K projector, and I was BLOWN AWAY. The image was clean and so detailed w/o looking sharp that it almost looked like it had added depth. I went with a friend to Red, and he doesn't do camera comparisons, but he also was absolutely blown away. We both said that we saw a new/possibly better aesthetic for filmmaking. With the C300, I saw something that was passable and would have been pretty impressive if the F3 hadn't come out. Although, I actually thought "Like Crazy" looked significantly better on the big screen. And it was shot on 7D w/ a PL mount and a set of Arri Ultra Primes.

YMMV, but how Phillip Bloom or anyone else can compare the images of a C300 to those of an Epic is beyond me. From what I've seen, there is simply no comparison whatsoever. (And shooting 50Mb MPEG-2 vs Red's 48MB, for the Canon's image to look better would be a small scientific miracle.)

 

[TimurCivan]

I know you have a F3 already and great glass.

Do you need a new best friend?

Its all about business my friend. The scarlet will make me money. The F3 makes me Happy.

 

[yoclay]

Its all about business my friend. The scarlet will make me money. The F3 makes me Happy.

That's interesting, could you expound on that?

I kind of suspected that there is a buzz or prestige value around RED which can help attract work, but wondered how in your mind the F3 compared to the Scarlet/Epic.

 

[Nuno Dias]

indiawilds,

I must have been in the main theatre. It was huge and full. The film that I saw had something to do with a girl, her father and a sword. The entire film was rather horrible. The slow motion looked like very bad TV. The highlights were blown-out in quite a few shots, there was mosquito noise and blocking. I also saw Laforet talk about "Mobius" and watched him comment on some footage. It looked better, but not blow you away amazing.

I contrast that to watching Red's Epic 700 reel at Red Studios on a 4K projector, and I was BLOWN AWAY. The image was clean and so detailed w/o looking sharp that it almost looked like it had added depth. I went with a friend to Red, and he doesn't do camera comparisons, but he also was absolutely blown away. We both said that we saw a new/possibly better aesthetic for filmmaking. With the C300, I saw something that was passable and would have been pretty impressive if the F3 hadn't come out. Although, I actually thought "Like Crazy" looked significantly better on the big screen. And it was shot on 7D w/ a PL mount and a set of Arri Ultra Primes.

YMMV, but how Phillip Bloom or anyone else can compare the images of a C300 to those of an Epic is beyond me. From what I've seen, there is simply no comparison whatsoever. (And shooting 50Mb MPEG-2 vs Red's 48MB, for the Canon's image to look better would be a small scientific miracle.)

Well, the problem there is that Red makes those presentations like 'infomercials', meaning, pretty images shot specifically to produce beautiful visuals, eye candy sequences, at optimal settings and light. Whereas in the Canon presentations you saw actual fiction, short stories, testing the camera's limits.

As it should be. And yes, I also compare the C300 to the Epic, leaning heavily on the C300.

But I give you that, Sword is a very bad piece of film making, none of them were of any actual artistic quality, maybe Mobius, but still, pretty simple. Its up to anyone's eye to judge which image he likes best, I prefer the C300 over the Reds. You don't, many don't, probably most people don't, and that's just fine. I'm still convinced that its difficult to deal with hard lights on the Red, as it seems to be soft light dependent, as for the C300, so far I haven't seen anything that bugs me, but or course, I have to shoot it myself and test properly, I'm sure there will be issues.

But so far, my only two sensible choices to make fiction are the Alexa and probably the F65 (and I hope, the C300). I'm sorry but I just can't trust Red. Maybe its a cultural thing, all fireworks and commando talk with very little honesty and poor attitude. I seriously doubt the Epic can manage 13 stops, for example.

But on the other hand, there is my all time film God, Ridley Scott, shooting his most treasured possession, Prometheus, with an Epic. So there.

 

[indiawilds]

Cowpunk52 and Piolet, Thanks for your comments. Good to know that both of you had attended the function at Paramount and have favourable impressions. It is good to know that one of the members here has ordered the camera. Look forward to some footage. I read that the C300 with the EF version will be released in january and the PL version will be released in march. I guess that is a good move to push the EF version first. I hope that the EF version should be launched at a cheaper price as well (if Canon wants to push the EF line). BobbyMurcerFan: Philip Bloom had commented on the low light ability of the Epic, not on other aspects of image quality of Epic. We all know that epic has much higher resolution. Of course, he mentions that he got two epics and both failed. So reliability was an issue for him. When you spend 58k USD and it fails, I am sure it is going to hurt. I am sure I would have had a heart attack. These are great tools with positives and negative points. One needs to weigh the pros and cons and decide if one can buy or rent for own projects.

 

[Erich Ocean]

If two sensors can measure let's say 13 stops of light, they both are recording the same amount of information. Granted, DR tests have some subjective questions about the bottom end (ie, how much a stop is out of the noise floor, and really, what that noise looks like).

But, if two sensors clearly see 13 stops, then you can be pretty sure they are going to be able to capture the same amount of luminance range. If the Epic does 13.5, it would stand to reason that it captures more information that the C300.

Okay, this is also not helpful. A sensor has six inter-related components:

• The optical low pass filter (OLPF). Light hits this first; on the Alexa, it diffuses the light. On the Red Epic, it doesn't. You can see this easily if you point both cameras at a light.
• The microlens array (optional). This focuses light hitting the whole "square" onto the part of the sensor element that can actually record something (usually less than 50% of the square, and varies by sensor).
• The Bayer filter. These are the red, green, or blue filters that are placed on a given sensor element. IR is also cut in the red filter. Each camera has it's own special filter formulation, and the digital processing done down the line also has to work with these characteristics. Companies, in general, do not give out any useful information on this part of the sensor.
• The actual photon detection on each sensor element. This is analogue, and has to be converted to digital by the next step to get meaningful light measurements.
• The AD converters. Higher is usually better here (e.g. 16-bit vs 14-bit), but there's also a quality factor – within a given bit depth, how good is the conversion? Is it noisy? Which brings us to the next part
• Battling noise. This is why you have to "black shade" your camera: there's a lot of analogue noise the sensor picks up even when no light is hitting the sensor. A smart sensor designer will subtract out, or otherwise deal with, this pre-existing noise. Improvements here mostly affect the shadows, helping a camera see further into the dark.

So, with all that, looking at a spec sheet and saying: "Canon rates the C300 at 12 stops, and Red rates the Epic at 13.5 stops; therefore, Red better" is just not a rational way of looking at things. You have to look at the final images, and see which you like better. Treat them like film stock, and you're far, far closer to the truth. (And no, RAW doesn't help any of this, it happens after these 6 steps, as BobbyMurcerFan keeps reminding us.)

There is so much going on, and no one here doubts that Canon has the edge when it comes to sensor design, and getting the most out of a sensor (color science). Canon's R&D budget on this is absolutely enormous compared to what Red (or ARRI) can bring to the table. In fact, the reason the Alexa looks so good is because Arri does have way more experience than Red in this area, building scanners since the 90s. But Canon trumps both.

And it's also trivial to see that Red has very little experience with color science: look at how much it changes from version to version. This is Red getting better right in front of you! The rest of the manufacturers are already better at it, and getting better each time a new camera is released. Red, on the other hand, is pretty up front that they used to suck at it, and are slowly making improvements. Eventually, they'll get there (and indeed, are much closer now, but again, this in only one part of the sensor pipeline).

So yeah, "if two sensors clearly see 13 stops, then you can be pretty sure they are going to be able to capture the same amount of luminance range" is unhelpful pretty much no matter how you parse it. You simply cannot compare spec sheets on paper without examining the actual images and expect to make decisions based on that. Better to use spec sheets to guide you to the cameras to look at, and then examine the images yourself.

The C300 should be looked at as a competitor to the F3, as a B-cam for the Alexa and the Epic, and as a really kick-ass, no fuss camera for indie filmmakers.

For indie filmmakers especially, my opinion is that 95% of them would get a better result from the C300 than they would from the Scarlet, simply because Canon gives you a lot more out of box, and with the color science, and because you'll get more setups per day, and more flexibility with those setups. As a director myself, that's my recommendation. And as an Epic owner, I can say that it's a lot more work to get Red to look good vs. a Canon DSLR (and now the C300), and requires more light and care when shooting (not what you think when you hear "RAW").

 

[Melvin Harris]

The C300 should be looked at as a competitor to the F3, as a B-cam for the Alexa and the Epic, and as a really kick-ass, no fuss camera for indie filmmakers.

For indie filmmakers especially, my opinion is that 95% of them would get a better result from the C300 than they would from the Scarlet, simply because Canon gives you a lot more out of box, and with the color science, and because you'll get more setups per day, and more flexibility with those setups. As a director myself, that's my recommendation. And as an Epic owner, I can say that it's a lot more work to get Red to look good vs. a Canon DSLR (and now the C300), and requires more light and care when shooting (not what you think when you hear "RAW").

Okay... I agree with that, but with the price tag being what it is now, and with the feature set being what it is now, how could this be a "real" F3 stalker unless we talk rental market only. I mean, it has been said over and over that even with S-LOG, F3's features "beat" (a manner of opinion) Canon body only to body only when it comes to price. If you were to amortize both cameras, honestly, which would come out with the larger value to useful life ratio?

Not sure if this has been said, posted, or whatever but...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/743866-REG/Sony_PMW_F3K_PMW_F3K_Super_35mm_Full_HD.html

The F-3 package with lenses and slog is still cheaper than the C300 as it stands right now.

I know that the final street price is going to be different but all I can do now is conjecture, sorry.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Its all about business my friend. The scarlet will make me money. The F3 makes me Happy.

Brilliant, but...

The scarlet ________________. Makes me money/makes my movie.
The F3 _____________. Makes me happy.
The C300 _____________. is not on my radar.

How does this play for you in this camera climate?
And how does this help the C300 according to Thorpe

 

[Rick Burnett]

Okay, this is also not helpful. A sensor has six inter-related components:

• The optical low pass filter (OLPF). Light hits this first; on the Alexa, it diffuses the light. On the Red Epic, it doesn't. You can see this easily if you point both cameras at a light.
• The microlens array (optional). This focuses light hitting the whole "square" onto the part of the sensor element that can actually record something (usually less than 50% of the square, and varies by sensor).
• The Bayer filter. These are the red, green, or blue filters that are placed on a given sensor element. IR is also cut in the red filter. Each camera has it's own special filter formulation, and the digital processing done down the line also has to work with these characteristics. Companies, in general, do not give out any useful information on this part of the sensor.
• The actual photon detection on each sensor element. This is analogue, and has to be converted to digital by the next step to get meaningful light measurements.
• The AD converters. Higher is usually better here (e.g. 16-bit vs 14-bit), but there's also a quality factor – within a given bit depth, how good is the conversion? Is it noisy? Which brings us to the next part
• Battling noise. This is why you have to "black shade" your camera: there's a lot of analogue noise the sensor picks up even when no light is hitting the sensor. A smart sensor designer will subtract out, or otherwise deal with, this pre-existing noise. Improvements here mostly affect the shadows, helping a camera see further into the dark.

So, with all that, looking at a spec sheet and saying: "Canon rates the C300 at 12 stops, and Red rates the Epic at 13.5 stops; therefore, Red better" is just not a rational way of looking at things. You have to look at the final images, and see which you like better. Treat them like film stock, and you're far, far closer to the truth. (And no, RAW doesn't help any of this, it happens after these 6 steps, as BobbyMurcerFan keeps reminding us.)

There is so much going on, and no one here doubts that Canon has the edge when it comes to sensor design, and getting the most out of a sensor (color science). Canon's R&D budget on this is absolutely enormous compared to what Red (or ARRI) can bring to the table. In fact, the reason the Alexa looks so good is because Arri does have way more experience than Red in this area, building scanners since the 90s. But Canon trumps both.

And it's also trivial to see that Red has very little experience with color science: look at how much it changes from version to version. This is Red getting better right in front of you! The rest of the manufacturers are already better at it, and getting better each time a new camera is released. Red, on the other hand, is pretty up front that they used to suck at it, and are slowly making improvements. Eventually, they'll get there (and indeed, are much closer now, but again, this in only one part of the sensor pipeline).

So yeah, "if two sensors clearly see 13 stops, then you can be pretty sure they are going to be able to capture the same amount of luminance range" is unhelpful pretty much no matter how you parse it. You simply cannot compare spec sheets on paper without examining the actual images and expect to make decisions based on that. Better to use spec sheets to guide you to the cameras to look at, and then examine the images yourself.

The C300 should be looked at as a competitor to the F3, as a B-cam for the Alexa and the Epic, and as a really kick-ass, no fuss camera for indie filmmakers.

For indie filmmakers especially, my opinion is that 95% of them would get a better result from the C300 than they would from the Scarlet, simply because Canon gives you a lot more out of box, and with the color science, and because you'll get more setups per day, and more flexibility with those setups. As a director myself, that's my recommendation. And as an Epic owner, I can say that it's a lot more work to get Red to look good vs. a Canon DSLR (and now the C300), and requires more light and care when shooting (not what you think when you hear "RAW").

I agree that all those components before and after the sensor matter, absolutely, but most of this discussion was about highlights and what is happening when the image goes to clipping, or blown out, and if both cameras have the same dynamic range, and the light is compensated (through ND or adding light) to match the sensitivity of the camera, granted the curves are not TOTALLY out of whack, you can get the same results at the top end. Once you understand what each camera is doing.

The OLPF really doesn't matter with this. Whether you diffuse or use a birefringent material, all you are doing is reducing the spacial frequency to spread the image across multiple photosites. This affects resolution.

The microlens array does affect how much light you can capture. I've not seen Red or Arri comment on their lenses, but with the Canon, they claim gapless design. This will affect the sensitivity of the camera, but this is not going to affect the dynamic range either.

The IR filter for most sensors I've studied is included with the OLPF. This is why people are able to remove them.

The bayer pattern matters in terms of the color filter, definitely, as the color filters actually overlap in light response as well (slightly). This will affect the color separation, but again, it is not going to determine the dynamic range of the sensor. It will DEFINITELY have to be dealt with in the color science, but again, is not a part of the question with the dynamic range.

The photodiodes of every photosite along with the capacitor that stores that information, THAT matters as to the dynamic range. No question. How large those diodes are affects the sensitivity, but the capacitor determines what dynamic range the sensor can store.

The AD converters definitely contribute to noise, along with the self-body noise of the sensor as well. I won't go into all the sources of noise, but no question, there are many in CMOS design and off the CMOS sensor as well. This does affect dynamic range, and I agree. But, that is why there is a SNR measurement. Like I said earlier, the SNR measurement isn't going to tell you the quality of the noise, it's only going to tell you how the distribution to the actual signal magnitude difference. If two sensors have the same SNR and the same DR, then from a highlight protection standpoint, you should be able to get the same range of information. Whether the resolution, or color performance is the same, that doesn't say that. but luminance wise, you can represent the same range.

I'll repeat that I am not saying that Canon's color science isn't great, I've liked it for a long time on my Canon cameras. There is NO argument there. Also, I'd prefer the camera do the work for me instead of me having to fix the highlights in post, no argument there as well. But this is not the question. It was claimed that the Red Epic had a glitch in the sensor and that somehow it wasn't recording as much dynamic range in the highlights. If you can record 13.5 stops of information with the Epic and say 13 with the C300, then if you exposed to the same level of clipping, even if it looked ugly, you could recover that in post. It's not the C300 seeing something that the Epic is not seeing, it's the processing post sensor on how to deal with the highlights that is the issue.

This is about highlight science and dynamic range. Notice I said luminance and not color. What I am trying to discuss is the problem people see with how highlights are handled on certain cameras that are less then stellar when they clip. It's an image processing issue in the digital realm, not an analog problem.

 

[Bern Caughey]

Learning to get good skin tones with Red is mandatory if you want to shoot with the camera. It's not an "out of the box", automatic kind of thing where it happens just because you're shooting RAW.

Care to elaborate?

My background is fashion/beauty/celeb, so I know most the difficulties in producing great skin, but what's specific to the RED? Is it a matter of exposing the skin within the correct zone?

The Production Company I work with most is considering upgrading their RED One to an EPIC, & I'd like to know as much as possible before committing.

Thanks,
Bern

 

[TimurCivan]

I can't even believe this... so, let me get this straight; you choose a still image that was clearly blown up in size, distorting pixels and creating banding and whatnot, over going in to look at the film itself? You are not seriously judging the quaility of a camera by a blown out still frame used on the web! Please don't...

A little better:

View attachment 43339

​

See the highlight behind her hair? Minimal clipping, gentle rolloff. And its not that I don't want the freedom to grade the footage, being Raw doesn't necessarily help you anything with blown highlights, like I said, if the values were to high to reach within the sensor's DR then its gone, its pure white. And sometime we want pure white somewhere in the shot, be it a sky, a lamp, whatnot, but what we don't want is a clip, and the Red clip has a tiny rolloff that will make that highlight look fake, electronic even if you are able to get the clipping down to a minimum, it will look burned out, not smoothly rolling into white!

So, in that case, its not about knowing what we are doing, because sometimes we do want the exposure to go all the way. And clipping comes as an added extra that will ruin the shot, even if you grade it out, the electronic burn created by the clipping will always look fake and patchy.​

​

that highlight isn't exploding white becaused they used a great new tool called "cinematography".
Believe it or not, cameras look good on studio sets because of lighting control. Not because of their highlight roll off. I can make ANY camera look good in a controlled studio environment. From PD150 to Epic to alexa....

 

[TimurCivan]

Brilliant, but...

The scarlet ________________. Makes me money/makes my movie.
The F3 _____________. Makes me happy.
The C300 _____________. is not on my radar.

How does this play for you in this camera climate?
And how does this help the C300 according to Thorpe

I just think noone has seen great F3 footage yet. Its tough to learn log. Check out what Macgregor is shooting....

Based on what I've shot in this past month, the c300 doesn't impress me. Infact, it just disappointed me. The sample footage looked like 5d footage. Except for moebius, that looked awesome and it goes to show that the same cam n different hands will produce different images. I just think as a professional, its lack of features is the killer, not image quality. Moebius looked great. That movie with that dp would have looked jst as good on AF100, f3, epic, alexa or film. The dp knows how to control contrast. That's the trick. All these cams will look great if you know w hat you're doing. But the simple truth is in the end, 13.5 stops DR, and dead accurate color, like in an F3 is like like a chef having better tasting ingredients. It makes a difference. Its sometimes enough to push it over the edge from great to amazing.

That said, my experince has been this. Back 4 years ago,the HVX200 and the xha1/XLH1 were out together. The xlh1 was a sharper, camera. But it was hdv, 24PF. The hvx200 was a swiss army knife. It shot everything known to man, and was completely reliable. It helped me shoot and adapt to every situation I encountered.

Today, the 444 and sLog of the F3 help me with complex green screen, high end commercials, features, and music videos. And you know what, I can strip all that off, and run with a nikon zoom and axdcam for web eng. Same cam. Stretches from "dslr" jobs, to high end top tier. Switches from PL to Nikon, xdcam to 13.5 stop 10bit 1080p 444 LOG.

It does it all. ALL. That's why the F3 is better. It pays my bills, and gives me the tools I need. The c300 won't do that for me. Oh and its cheaper.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Care to elaborate?

My background is fashion/beauty/celeb, so I know most the difficulties in producing great skin, but what's specific to the RED? Is it a matter of exposing the skin within the correct zone?

There are two primary issues.

First, Red's sensors seem to respond worse to certain types of makeup than other cameras (which do respond, just not as badly). This can be solved by using different makeup, but it's not always possible with, e.g. a celeb.

Second, Red's skin handling is "fragile" under color correction. In particular, it tends to shift around in ways that are undesirable. This can be fixed with power windows. But it's tedious, and of course, represents an added cost.

The Production Company I work with most is considering upgrading their RED One to an EPIC, & I'd like to know as much as possible before committing.

Epic is night and day better than a Red One with skin handling. The consensus seems to be the better AD conversion in the Epic vs. the Red One. Since the Epic has the same sensor as the Red One MX, this is really the only change. I highly recommend an Epic over a Red One for your kind of work.

Look, don't let the skin stuff bother you. It's there, yeah, but it's not a deal killer or anything. You simply need to be aware that it exists, do tests, and get comfortable with how the camera responds in your studio, to your style of lighting. Epic is a great camera.

 

[TimurCivan]

Well, the theory goes:

4k R1: 2k green, 1k red, 1k blue.

5k/4.5k(redcolor2) MX: 2k green, 1.5k red, 1.5k blue

A dp I know has this theory. He thinks the balance of G to RB is better balanced on higher res sensor. I'm not sure I agree, but it makes sense as to why the epics color is better. It just seems to simple to me.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Well, the theory goes:

4k R1: 2k green, 1k red, 1k blue.

5k/4.5k(redcolor2) MX: 2k green, 1.5k red, 1.5k blue

A dp I know has this theory. He thinks the balance of G to RB is better balanced on higher res sensor. I'm not sure I agree, but it makes sense as to why the epics color is better. It just seems to simple to me.

Everything I've seen shows the Epic (MX) as a typical bayer pattern, so:

RG
GB

It is the same on both, arrayed across the entire sensor, therefore the ratio of green is always 2x to either blue or red.

The color depth is going to be dependent on the DR of each channel, the color resolution is going to be higher because you are sampling the color at a higher spatial resolution. So while I agree with the DP's thoughts on Epic (in terms of color representation) with the assumption Red built on the tech of the Red One sensor, his math on the color ratio's is off.

 

[dustylense]

Come on guys. Let's face reality here. Did the canon Dslr's not shake up film making? It was also by accident? Has RED shaken up the film making industry? The Sony F3, the AF100, The FS100, The Scarlet, the C300, all came from the 5dMK2 hype. RED tried to enter that hype with Scarlet and failed with the 3k for 3k. It's just fact. Now, give a TOP cinematographer a 5Dmk2, and he will blow the socks off everyone on this thread no matter what camera they use. Why don't you guys stop beating to death bayer patterns, highlights, codecs, AD coverters and just appreciate how fast "better" cameras are being introduced? If you don't like the C300, then don't use it. If you feel the Scarlet is for you, have at it. I bet if Ridley Scott where to make a feature on the Iphone 4s, it would do well. Without story and content, I could care less what your image looks like and what it was filmed on. You can have the most perfect image, but if it's boring in terms of context, what the hell does it matter?
A whole industry was created for grip on the 5Dmk2. Go to any website like Zacuto, Redrock Mirco, Letus, Vocas, and so many more. THey all have gear to support the HDslr and on the front home page of their websites. So Canon jumps in the game with a camera that supposedly cures the 5d's faults, but targeted at productions with budgets where some have used 5d's and 7d's. Good for them! Eventually it will trickle into the indie markets. I really don't think they are competing against anybody but themselves. I don't think they ever intended to sell the C300 in the numbers that their Hdslr's have. I think they are just putting their second leg into the pair of pants of large sensor image capture.
Two years from now (if we get there) all these cameras will be on ebay replacing the HVX200's and EX-1's. They will all be better, faster, cheaper, and SCRUTINIZED in a new thread. I know, it's fun to discuss tech, talk shop as it's called. But this thread has gotten way off track and really somewhat of a mental pissing match. WHats really sad is that NONE of us have even shot with the C300. XXIT had scenes shot at 16000 ISO. Come on! Bump your RED Epic and F3 to 16000 ISO! We haven't even gotten to the 1dX and the 1Dc yet. Canon has MAJOR resource. The C300 is to see how they fit in Hollywood, for those that can afford it. It's price is to cover it's R&D for a limited production. It's not meant to be the 5dmk3, Scarlet, F3, Af100, ALexa. It's just a new cinema cam. Pick the one that works for you. Hell, it might even be an Iphone 6 this time next year....

 

[Rick Burnett]

Come on guys. Let's face reality here. Did the canon Dslr's not shake up film making? It was also by accident? Has RED shaken up the film making industry? The Sony F3, the AF100, The FS100, The Scarlet, the C300, all came from the 5dMK2 hype. RED tried to enter that hype with Scarlet and failed with the 3k for 3k. It's just fact. Now, give a TOP cinematographer a 5Dmk2, and he will blow the socks off everyone on this thread no matter what camera they use. Why don't you guys stop beating to death bayer patterns, highlights, codecs, AD coverters and just appreciate how fast "better" cameras are being introduced? If you don't like the C300, then don't use it. If you feel the Scarlet is for you, have at it. I bet if Ridley Scott where to make a feature on the Iphone 4s, it would do well. Without story and content, I could care less what your image looks like and what it was filmed on. You can have the most perfect image, but if it's boring in terms of context, what the hell does it matter?
A whole industry was created for grip on the 5Dmk2. Go to any website like Zacuto, Redrock Mirco, Letus, Vocas, and so many more. THey all have gear to support the HDslr and on the front home page of their websites. So Canon jumps in the game with a camera that supposedly cures the 5d's faults, but targeted at productions with budgets where some have used 5d's and 7d's. Good for them! Eventually it will trickle into the indie markets. I really don't think they are competing against anybody but themselves. I don't think they ever intended to sell the C300 in the numbers that their Hdslr's have. I think they are just putting their second leg into the pair of pants of large sensor image capture.
Two years from now (if we get there) all these cameras will be on ebay replacing the HVX200's and EX-1's. They will all be better, faster, cheaper, and SCRUTINIZED in a new thread. I know, it's fun to discuss tech, talk shop as it's called. But this thread has gotten way off track and really somewhat of a mental pissing match. WHats really sad is that NONE of us have even shot with the C300. XXIT had scenes shot at 16000 ISO. Come on! Bump your RED Epic and F3 to 16000 ISO! We haven't even gotten to the 1dX and the 1Dc yet. Canon has MAJOR resource. The C300 is to see how they fit in Hollywood, for those that can afford it. It's price is to cover it's R&D for a limited production. It's not meant to be the 5dmk3, Scarlet, F3, Af100, ALexa. It's just a new cinema cam. Pick the one that works for you. Hell, it might even be an Iphone 6 this time next year....

With all due respect, a post like this really don't help anyone with the quantity of assertions based on your opinions, and not fact. Do you work for Canon, do you have an insight into their R&D? Were you there when they decided what their target market was and why they made the decisions they did? You've done nothing but exhibit the behavior that you are railing against. Most of us followed the release, have read interviews, watched samples, data mined as much as can be to find out as much as possible. At least with the technical discussions, no one is trying to second guess what it is Canon's motivations. Others are working out their justification for getting/not getting the camera. Remember, not everyone is here for the same reason. The bottom line is Canon is not infallible. The point of "discussion" can be to talk about the things you like, or the things you dislike. The key is being constructive.

The simple fact is, if you don't enjoy technical discussions on a camera that no one can use yet, then don't be a part of them or don't read those responses. No one is forcing to to read them. People are finding information pertaining to the C300 and other people are comparing/contrasting to the technology that exists in other cameras. I've personally enjoyed the level of discussion that has become quite technical and that has covered a lot of topics that many people might not have been aware of. Some people like having that information more accessible, some people don't. Again, so you don't like the discussion, don't participate.