Yeah, there are no NDs on the Epic or Scarlet-X cameras.
Btw, if you want to take a look inside an Epic, the FCC teardown is here (Epic FCC ID is YGA001). Click on internal photos.
Interview with Canon's Larry Thorpe on C300 - Explains a lot
- Thread starter Piolet
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, there are no NDs on the Epic or Scarlet-X cameras.
Btw, if you want to take a look inside an Epic, the FCC teardown is here (Epic FCC ID is YGA001). Click on internal photos.
Hi Rick,
I enjoy your post's. Since you have the Sony FS-100 I was wondering if you could give me some perspective.
FS-100 + Nanoflash + Heliopan vND= low light, low noise, 422, 1080 60p, 8 Bit. (about $9000 with IS kit lense)
VS.
Canon C300 Low light? Low noise?? 422, 720 60p, 8 Bit (hoping for $14,000---16,000 with canon zoom is Lense)
$5-7,000 difference between the cameras. For naritive work is the C-300 worth the difference? (DR, Image, built in ND filters)
If the FS-100 was used by the same directors who shot the short films for C-300 How do you think it would compare?
I think I am seeing more noise out of the C-300. I know some of that may be web compresion, but if the final destination is the web will this be a problem for the C-300?
Will Canon IS lenses work on the C-300?
With the added bluetooth device will I be able to remote pull foccus with a 3rd party device similar to the Birger?
I enjoy your post's. Since you have the Sony FS-100 I was wondering if you could give me some perspective.
FS-100 + Nanoflash + Heliopan vND= low light, low noise, 422, 1080 60p, 8 Bit. (about $9000 with IS kit lense)
VS.
Canon C300 Low light? Low noise?? 422, 720 60p, 8 Bit (hoping for $14,000---16,000 with canon zoom is Lense)
$5-7,000 difference between the cameras. For naritive work is the C-300 worth the difference? (DR, Image, built in ND filters)
If the FS-100 was used by the same directors who shot the short films for C-300 How do you think it would compare?
I think I am seeing more noise out of the C-300. I know some of that may be web compresion, but if the final destination is the web will this be a problem for the C-300?
Will Canon IS lenses work on the C-300?
With the added bluetooth device will I be able to remote pull foccus with a 3rd party device similar to the Birger?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Sorry, you got that backwards. 35mbps of XDCAM 4:2:0 does not beat 50mbps of XDCAM 4:2:2. The Canon is using the same Sony codec in the higher MPEG422 profile.,
Not that it's a great codec, but it's certainly several notches above the F3's codec.
???
The imager on the C300 is quite advanced over the imager on the F3.
This is possibly true, depending on what you consider the processing. The F3 has the ability with an upgrade to output 4:4:4 and 4:2:2 10-bit, both of which are superior to what the C300 can do.
I doubt that's the "only thing" better about it. I think for the money the F3 is probably the better buy for most people, but to totally dismiss it without even seeing a complete spec sheet seems premature.
J Davis
Veteran
internal ND's are coming
edit:
correction - internal filter tray is coming
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...EMENT-Feedback&p=858648&viewfull=1#post858648
edit:
correction - internal filter tray is coming
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...EMENT-Feedback&p=858648&viewfull=1#post858648
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
You have to take the lens off, it holds only one. Some plus and minus there.
However, my concern would be the change in the focal parameters. Once you add another piece of glass between the lens and the sensor, it is going to change the light path. As others have experienced, this means the lens isn't going to be accurate in terms of the focus ring and what is printed on it. I wonder what you can do to account for that?
That's why there is a clear ND in the AF100, so you maintain that. Also, if the filters are 3rd party, different thickness to the glass I would imagine would play a role (I have a cursory understanding of optical engineering). Is Red going to provide a clear ND so that everything stays in sync?
Interesting nevertheless.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The OLPF is nothing to do with ND filtration, nor is it what you'd use to correct for the optical path having a filter put in place or not put in place. The OLPF is bonded to the sensor, and is unrelated to what's under discussion here.
Red's idea of a filter tray is intriguing; it's not nearly as convenient as a three-filter wheel of course, but it's a million times better than putting filters on the front of the lens. It's an old idea; I've got some 1960's-era movie cameras that have removable filter trays... the question Rick raises is valid, how do you keep the optical path the same when there is and isn't a filter in place, but other than that it's a decent idea. Keeps the size down, and it avoids having to change filters every time you change a lens and all the complications that come from that, plus no need to fiddle with step-up or step-down rings etc...
Erich Ocean
Active member
On the Epic, the OLPF is swappable; Red demo'd a bunch of alternative OLPFs (e.g. to make it look more like an Alexa) at NAB this year.
I think RED's solution is a nice option for existing customers but it's really a work-around for an existing limitation of the camera. If you designed a new camera from scratch, you wouldn't do it that way--too many operational compromises. You really don't want the customer to be reaching into the sensor port unless it's really necessary. It's better to do it with an integrated ND unit like the mechanical filter wheel on broadcast video cameras. The C300 goes further with a very slick motorized unit that moves the glass ND filters in and out of the path like a card trick. They probably had to motorize it in order to fit within the space constraints.
For $36,000 the Epic really should have been designed with internal, switchable ND filters. All of these new cameras should because the base ISO is so high...usually 640 or 850.
Edit: did some further research and rear-mounted glass filters on a lens can shift the focus point by 1/3 the thickness of the filter. With gel filters (as on supertelephoto and still lenses) the thickness is neglectible.
For $36,000 the Epic really should have been designed with internal, switchable ND filters. All of these new cameras should because the base ISO is so high...usually 640 or 850.
Edit: did some further research and rear-mounted glass filters on a lens can shift the focus point by 1/3 the thickness of the filter. With gel filters (as on supertelephoto and still lenses) the thickness is neglectible.
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Hmmm, looks like I am guilty of an Epic fail...
Erich Ocean
Active member
Now that I've had time to digest these announcements, I've come to this conclusion:
Like the Epic is to the Alexa, the F3 is to the C300.
Yeah, the F3 has "better" specs, on paper – but this is ignoring operational efficiency and the ease with which you can achieve that image quality, and real differences between their sensors and color science.
And just like the Alexa has kicked the "cheaper" Epic's ass in actual production use, I predict the C300 will kick F3's ass once they are competing head to head.
Like the Epic is to the Alexa, the F3 is to the C300.
Yeah, the F3 has "better" specs, on paper – but this is ignoring operational efficiency and the ease with which you can achieve that image quality, and real differences between their sensors and color science.
And just like the Alexa has kicked the "cheaper" Epic's ass in actual production use, I predict the C300 will kick F3's ass once they are competing head to head.
Epic: Baz Luhrmann's "The great Gatsby", "Total recall", Ridley Scott's "Prometheus", "Spiderman", "The hobbit", "Jack the giant killer" from Bryan Singer, "Underworld", "Girl with dragon tattoo" from David Fincher, I don't really see the ass kicking.
I think the Alexa image look is more feminine, softer, immediately pleasing, and then is perfect for commercials or TV, Epic's look is more rough, and suits nicely big productions.
Last edited:
Erich Ocean
Active member
I own an Epic-X. I visit RedUser. I'm aware of what project it's in, and what it can do.
And even with all that, the Alexa rents a hell of a lot better than an Epic. That's what I mean by "kicking ass".
The F3 is a great camera too, and no doubt will get used a lot. But I expect the C300 to rent way, way better, for the same reasons that an Alexa rents way, way better than an Epic.
And even with all that, the Alexa rents a hell of a lot better than an Epic. That's what I mean by "kicking ass".
The F3 is a great camera too, and no doubt will get used a lot. But I expect the C300 to rent way, way better, for the same reasons that an Alexa rents way, way better than an Epic.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
The OLPF is changeable on the Canon DSLRs as well. Not by the user mind you, but there was a user here who had his replaced. The CFA (Color Filter Array) is bonded to the die usually. The OLPF typically has the IR filter bonded to it.
I contacted a company about getting a different OLPF for my 7D. The cost however made it absolutely NOT worth it to them or me for a one off.
Given the C300 is not in final production, nobody here knows yet what the IQ is going to be. We'll just have to wait and see.
For every Epic production there are six Alexa productions. It doesn't hold a candle to Alexa as far as saturation in television, commercial, or feature film where money is less of an object.
BobbyMurcerFan
Well-known member
I think I'm starting to understand the C300. I believe that Canon did listen to a lot of industry people. But you know what? They were not us!
We are by and large (there are, of course, exceptions to the detailed generalization I am about to make) are one man bands who do just about everything... but probably none of them at the very highest of levels. Are there a lot of ASC's, ACE's, feature film composers here? Honestly? Probably not. We own a camera or two, a few lav mics, a boom, some lights and bounce cards and maybe still lenses that we call "primes"... maybe a set of cine-modded ZF's or even better CP.2's or Panchros--and then you're a king. We shoot all sorts of stuff from bat mitzvahs to features w/ budgets of under $1 million. We think Resolve Lite is like we died and went to heaven... but also see it as a sign of continued wage deflation.
Nobody talking to us would create a $20K camera. And by realizing that those dots don't connect, I can conclude that Canon didn't talk to us. Canon talked to people working inside the industry. And what they must have heard is, "We need!:"
1. A small form factor. Easy to shoot on location, hand hold and support.
2. Great low light performance. Less money spent on lighting.
3. Broadcast approved and easy to edit. No add-on cards, everyone's on the same page in terms of color science, no need for bleeding edge computers or specialized software and workflow knowledge.
4. Reliable. No odd failures or disabled features.
5. "Cheap." But doesn't have to be that cheap. For a lot of reality TV shows, the XF305 at $8K is uber-cheap b/c it takes a great picture, is easy to post and very reliable.
If the above are your requirements, then the C300 IS your camera.
We are by and large (there are, of course, exceptions to the detailed generalization I am about to make) are one man bands who do just about everything... but probably none of them at the very highest of levels. Are there a lot of ASC's, ACE's, feature film composers here? Honestly? Probably not. We own a camera or two, a few lav mics, a boom, some lights and bounce cards and maybe still lenses that we call "primes"... maybe a set of cine-modded ZF's or even better CP.2's or Panchros--and then you're a king. We shoot all sorts of stuff from bat mitzvahs to features w/ budgets of under $1 million. We think Resolve Lite is like we died and went to heaven... but also see it as a sign of continued wage deflation.
Nobody talking to us would create a $20K camera. And by realizing that those dots don't connect, I can conclude that Canon didn't talk to us. Canon talked to people working inside the industry. And what they must have heard is, "We need!:"
1. A small form factor. Easy to shoot on location, hand hold and support.
2. Great low light performance. Less money spent on lighting.
3. Broadcast approved and easy to edit. No add-on cards, everyone's on the same page in terms of color science, no need for bleeding edge computers or specialized software and workflow knowledge.
4. Reliable. No odd failures or disabled features.
5. "Cheap." But doesn't have to be that cheap. For a lot of reality TV shows, the XF305 at $8K is uber-cheap b/c it takes a great picture, is easy to post and very reliable.
If the above are your requirements, then the C300 IS your camera.
Last edited:
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
One thing you need to take into account is the C300 is not finalized in a production unit in hands that can test independently. I say this not from a negative perspective, but an unknown perspective. Many questions cannot be definitively answered yet.
From what I can see, the C300 delivers much more actual resolution than the FS100. If resolution is a huge factor for you, that is one thing to consider. In addition, from tests I have seen from Barry Green, I also believe the color resolution will be higher on the C300. Again, I can't really answer that for you.
From a form factor perspective, I'd rather not have a Nanoflash hanging off my camera. I like a small setup. I'm satisfied with the quality of the internal codec in the FS100. Even the green screen work I have done has been acceptable to me. I've compared footage (not shot by me) from a Nanoflash and the internal footage, and while the 4:2:0 internally isn't the greatest for compositing for me, I've learned to live with it. I just dumb down the 3D generated footage with plugins that take down the color-sampling for me. Works pretty well.
In addition (and this could have changed since I last checked) but I do not believe the Nanoflash can record 1080p60 either. (Just an FYI, the output on the FS100 can do 4:4:4 but I do not see ANY recorder reasonably priced that can record that, and that is REALLY overkill for the sensor resolution in my opinion).
The FS100 is GREAT in low light. I've only evaluated one video of the C300 at 16k ISO and I thought it was pretty good. It looked slightly better than some of the 16k stuff I have shot with the FS100 (+30dB on the FS100). Here is the thing though, BOTH of the C300 and FS100 are exceptional at low light. I'd be comfortable in saying each of them far exceeds many other cameras and can both be considered VERY usable. The FS100 sees in the dark practically (just as the C300 does) and really, you are going to have light so your talent can see what they are doing, at least some!
So on that front, given I cannot test the C300 yet, I think they both excel at. (And that's taking the opinion of the shooters that did the test videos, not actual experience).Also, ND filters are a pain on the FS100. Having used an AF100 with them built in, I've constantly found them to be an annoyance for me. I use a magnetic filter attach system from Xume that works great, but each filter seems to have different problems. For instance, the Heliopan works almost the best of all of them from what I see, until you put it on a Tokina 11-16mm and get vignetting. So, if you are using that lens and can't stop down anymore, you'll need to use something different to avoid vignetting.
Pertaining to the focus pulling over the web interface, I've not seen any reviews that have said how well that works. Does the camera have focus peaking? Does the display on the web interface allow zoom? What is the latency like? Just too many questions. Given the Birger is not shipping yet (still) we also don't know how well that works remotely either in the final production version. Again, many unknowns. I thought I saw that the Canon has a LANC port as well, so you should be able to remote control with other interfaces the focus too, but, again, I haven't seen confirmation on that exactly yet (or the IS being on, but I'd have to imagine if the lens has power, it should work).
So what have I just said? A lot of no answers. There are just too many unknowns. Is that extra $6k to $11k worth it depending on the final price? It all depends on your target audience, the limitations of what the camera cannot do, and what your return on investment is going to be. I really like a lot of things about the FS100, but there or things I dislike as well, and not using my EOS glass easily is one of them. Basically, I just couldn't even begin to answer that question for you.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Exactly.
That is who the C300 was designed for.
It was not designed for DSLR shooters. It was designed to appeal to Hollywood shooters themselves, which is why they consulted with Hollywood shooters, they held the launch event at a Hollywood studio, they hired a Hollywood PR firm to put on the event, and they're opening a service and support center IN HOLLYWOOD.
The C300 is not for "the rest of us". It is what it is, but I don't believe it was ever intended to be sold in mass quantities to DSLR shooters.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
But is it the right tool to shoot commercials with?
One thing you need to take into account is the C300 is not finalized in a production unit in hands that can test independently. I say this not from a negative perspective, but an unknown perspective. Many questions cannot be definitively answered yet.
From what I can see, the C300 delivers much more actual resolution than the FS100. If resolution is a huge factor for you, that is one thing to consider. In addition, from tests I have seen from Barry Green, I also believe the color resolution will be higher on the C300. Again, I can't really answer that for you.
From a form factor perspective, I'd rather not have a Nanoflash hanging off my camera. I like a small setup. I'm satisfied with the quality of the internal codec in the FS100. Even the green screen work I have done has been acceptable to me. I've compared footage (not shot by me) from a Nanoflash and the internal footage, and while the 4:2:0 internally isn't the greatest for compositing for me, I've learned to live with it. I just dumb down the 3D generated footage with plugins that take down the color-sampling for me. Works pretty well.
In addition (and this could have changed since I last checked) but I do not believe the Nanoflash can record 1080p60 either. (Just an FYI, the output on the FS100 can do 4:4:4 but I do not see ANY recorder reasonably priced that can record that, and that is REALLY overkill for the sensor resolution in my opinion).
The FS100 is GREAT in low light. I've only evaluated one video of the C300 at 16k ISO and I thought it was pretty good. It looked slightly better than some of the 16k stuff I have shot with the FS100 (+30dB on the FS100). Here is the thing though, BOTH of the C300 and FS100 are exceptional at low light. I'd be comfortable in saying each of them far exceeds many other cameras and can both be considered VERY usable. The FS100 sees in the dark practically (just as the C300 does) and really, you are going to have light so your talent can see what they are doing, at least some!
Also, ND filters are a pain on the FS100. Having used an AF100 with them built in, I've constantly found them to be an annoyance for me. I use a magnetic filter attach system from Xume that works great, but each filter seems to have different problems. For instance, the Heliopan works almost the best of all of them from what I see, until you put it on a Tokina 11-16mm and get vignetting. So, if you are using that lens and can't stop down anymore, you'll need to use something different to avoid vignetting.
Pertaining to the focus pulling over the web interface, I've not seen any reviews that have said how well that works. Does the camera have focus peaking? Does the display on the web interface allow zoom? What is the latency like? Just too many questions. Given the Birger is not shipping yet (still) we also don't know how well that works remotely either in the final production version. Again, many unknowns. I thought I saw that the Canon has a LANC port as well, so you should be able to remote control with other interfaces the focus too, but, again, I haven't seen confirmation on that exactly yet (or the IS being on, but I'd have to imagine if the lens has power, it should work).
So what have I just said? A lot of no answers. There are just too many unknowns. Is that extra $6k to $11k worth it depending on the final price? It all depends on your target audience, the limitations of what the camera cannot do, and what your return on investment is going to be. I really like a lot of things about the FS100, but there or things I dislike as well, and not using my EOS glass easily is one of them. Basically, I just couldn't even begin to answer that question for you.
Thank you for the detailed post. I learned a lot. I found some more answers, but as you said, there are still a lot of unknowns.
Does the EF model support autofocus? If not, why?
No. Neither the EOS C300 nor the EOS C300 PL support autofocus. The autofocus needs of a still photographer are very different than that of the cinema user. In cinema use, focus is preferred to be fully manual for full control and smooth shot timing by an experienced focus puller or camera operator.
Does the Image Stabilization (IS) built into certain Canon EF and EF-S lenses work on EOS C300 cameras?
Yes. Image Stabilization will function if any Canon EF or EF-S lens with the IS feature is mounted onto the EOS C300 camera. Image Stabilization continues to provide a measure of shake-reduction, and can be effective when cameras are being hand-held, used in any sort of photographer-supported "rig", or even when mounted onto something like a moving vehicle. With most Canon EF lenses having Image Stabilization, it's recommended to turn the IS feature off (using the on-off switch on the lens) if the camera and lens are mounted onto a sturdy tripod that can be expected to fully eliminate camera movement. Critical users may also want to consider turning IS off in situations where an on-camera microphone is being used for audio recording, to avoid the slight noise of the stabilization system from being recorded. Please note that the use of Canon EF and EF-S lenses with Image Stabilization is only possible with the EF mount version of the EOS C300; as of November, 2011, Canon makes no PL-mount lenses with Image Stabilization for the EOS C300 PL (the PL-mount version of the camera).
WI-FI REMOTEIs the Wi-Fi remote included in the basic camera package?
No. The Canon Wireless Controller WFT-E6 is an optional accessory that can be purchased and added to the EOS C300 package. Pricing is TBA.
What are some of the capabilities when the WFT-E6 is combined with the EOS C300?
Outstanding remote control possibilities, using nearly any web-enabled "smart-phone" or digital pad. Some of the camera controls which are possible include:
- Adjust focus, forward or backward (EF lenses on EOS C300)
- Adjust iris, shutter speed/angle, gain/ISO, White Balance
- Change image parameters
- View status display of camera
- Input metadata
- Start/stop recording
What mobile devices are going to be supported by the Wi-Fi remote?
Both Android and iOS mobile devices are supported.
What are the compatible Web Browsers for the Wi-Fi remote?
Internet Explorer 8 and up, Safari (iOS), Safari (Mac OS), and Android standard browsers are supported.
- Status