open letter to CANON: A new strategy

cowpunk52 said:
I was working for Canon during the event at Paramount, and I can confirm that the SDI out is 8-bit. From the filmmaker's perspectives, none of the films presented ran into any problems with the in-camera 8 bit codec, and I believe them. I shoot and edit with the Canon XF codec on a regular (read: weekly) basis, and haven't once seen posterization across any gradient either before or after color grading. But don't take my word for it, watch the films from the announcement - there was a lot of heavy post grading and digital special effects in some of them. This idea that 8-bit is somehow completely untouchable in post is quite frankly 100% bullocks.

I can also say that this camera is the first in a family of cameras for the EOS Cinema line.

Personally, I think $20k is a bit too high for this camera. But $15k would be a bargain for what it's capable of delivering, especially since I wouldn't have to pay for an LOG format upgrade or an external recorder.
Click to expand...

There is posterization in the videos that have been released online, including aliasing as well. Now, is that a product of the release compression? Most certainly could be, which is why I haven't really commented much about it yet. I've seen my fair share of demo videos that when encoded properly look totally different. It's just an unknown. Just like when I've heard people talk of no posterization on the AF100 or no noise, or no aliasing. I've caused ALL of those to happen with the AF100 out of the box. It's just a question of what settings you want to use, and what trade-offs you want to take. In the end, I had a beautiful image on my AF100, that didn't really suffer often from any of those issues. Albiet it was a bit softer and less saturated then I wanted, but that was the trade-off I took. Certainly with the C300 there is a lot of unknowns still. I just don't get how a codec and hardware in a $3500 camera that already supports that bit rate internally gets a camera up to $20k in price. Doesn't make any sense. Even take into account that that $3500 camera has a lens that comes with it as well, and electronic controls to control it. It would be different if it were something new, or higher bit rate, but I don't see that. My FS100 can even do 1080p60 and it does a really good job of it.

All that said, I have my experience with 8-bit codecs as well and the biggest issue that hurts 8-bit tends to be extremely clean footage. I agree that 8-bit streams can mask those issues if through noise or processing you can dither between the steps so as to minimize the visual appearance of a step, but the cleaner you go, to keep the image clean you are going to need more steps. The videos I watched that were shown didn't show me the extreme grading I've seen where these issues pop up. Maybe Canon has some magic that makes a difference. I just don't see this $20k difference in the footage.
 
Rick Burnett said:
There is posterization in the videos that have been released online, including aliasing as well. Now, is that a product of the release compression?
Click to expand...

I think if you had seen the films projected at the Paramount Theatre, you're question would be answered.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
For that....hmmm, one could buy an AF100 , an FS100, a couple of go pros, a 5DMK2, a GH2, and an AC160. I know it's a bit ludicrous to put it like that....
Click to expand...

Now that's not a fair comparison. With the right amount of gaffers tape in all the right places, the above rig you mention could piece together a 4k image.
 
cowpunk52 said:
I think if you had seen the films projected at the Paramount Theatre, you're question would be answered.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, as I've seen plenty of material get projected through a projector that has a luminance range that can hide some of that posterization. I have an Epson projector that displays 1080p that I've noticed this on when I show some stuff I see posterization on where I edit (using Mac 30" screens). I'm not saying I didn't enjoy what was shot, and that I am not satisfied with what quality I've seen so far, it does look nice, but does it look $20k nice? Compared to footage I've seen off of the F3, AF100 or FS100? No, not seeing that yet. And I mean with material being displayed at the same sites, so I am familiar with what kind of artifacts get introduced.

Not everyone is going to be projecting this material. Our material goes out to our huge audience on the web, and we do put out 1080p, but we also know that we get hit with compression issues following the format of the sites we release at (Youtube, Vimeo). So we study what happens to that footage. We make changes to try and minimize those issues.

Again, I am not saying this isn't a good camera, or that the quality doesn't look good, but again, the price makes no sense. Even if the codec was good enough, as you feel, it's the same thing a $3500 camera has in it. That's what people have issue with. Let's even make a huge conservative guess that the lens and electronics to control the lens was only $500 (which I doubt) that $17,000 is what you are paying for this new sensor and the decoding circuits for it?

I mean, take a look at the XF100HD

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/733533-REG/Canon_4888B001_XF100_HD_Professional_Camcorder.html

Same recording specs. Same dual CF card slots. Same color space. Same resolution support in terms of storage. Same image processor.
Additional built in mics. Additional built in lens.
No SDI. Only 1 ND setting.

$2999.00

You want to add SDI, Genlock, okay, then the XF105HD:

$3999.00

So taking all the other technology out, that we have precedence for, we get $16k minus the lens system cost. It just doesn't make sense.
 
Last edited:
The XF100 has a tiny sensor. That's not what people want in cinema. To get a cinematic look, i.e; depth of field, tonal gradation, exposure latitude, highlight shoulder, exposure in the shadows etc... that costs money!

And I agree with cowpunk52, if you can't see the polarization on the big screen, why complain about it? Does the image on those films look 20K? Absolutely. Four different films with four completely different looks, styles and lighting designs. To be quite honest, I much prefer what I saw from those films alone, than anything shot on the MX sensor to date. Honestly.

The only things I don't like in the C300 its the design, its an ugly looking camera, old fashioned design and just a plain '80s camcorder' look. But I can live with that. I really do love the image and I know as soon as I try one out, I can get the look I'm after.

Am I going to buy one? Hell no. That's not the point. I'll rent it. This is a company camera, not a 'personal' camera by design, price and usability.
 
Nuno Dias said:
The XF100 has a tiny sensor. That's not what people want in cinema. To get a cinematic look, i.e; depth of field, tonal gradation, exposure latitude, highlight shoulder, exposure in the shadows etc... that costs money!

And I agree with cowpunk52, if you can't see the polarization on the big screen, why complain about it? Does the image on those films look 20K? Absolutely. Four different films with four completely different looks, styles and lighting designs. To be quite honest, I much prefer what I saw from those films alone, than anything shot on the MX sensor to date. Honestly.

The only things I don't like in the C300 its the design, its an ugly looking camera, old fashioned design and just a plain '80s camcorder' look. But I can live with that. I really do love the image and I know as soon as I try one out, I can get the look I'm after.

Am I going to buy one? Hell no. That's not the point. I'll rent it. This is a company camera, not a 'personal' camera by design, price and usability.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point of the comparison, yes 1/3" is a small sensor, and I am not suggesting the camera be priced at $3k, $4k or even $6k personally. What people are trying to wrap their heads around is where does $20k come from? From a technical point of view, it doesn't make sense. Not aesthetic, but technical.

Further, if you read what I wrote, not everyone releases material for projection. Even broadcast is going to have a big range of uses. Further, as video moves through multiple levels of compression before it even gets to your house, those issues can be compounded. Given this camera outputs 1080p as it's final size, I would think it was more in line with broadcast and less in line with actual cinema if one was to be forward looking, but as many have said, that is debatable.

What 80's camcorder looks like this camera? When I think 80's camcorder, I think of this style:

http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h...rum images/250px-Old_School_JVC_Camcorder.jpg

And it clearly looks nothing like that to me.

I also don't get how design and usability make this a company camera? It has a design that looks like a hybrid between a DSLR and a last gen video camera. Where in that does it speak for just once audience? To me it feels like they are trying to capture both audiences. And design wise, I see many of the same abilities I see on say the AF100. The AF100 has waveforms, it has SDI 4:2:2 8-bit output, it actually has more features like automatic controls if one wants with the lenses. It does 1080p60 slo-mo, which is more than you can do on the C300. It has an EVF and an LCD, albiet not removable. The same comparisons could be made with the FS100 for certain capabilities that it has, like true 1080p60 or 4:4:4 8-bit out (although HDMI and not SDI).

If you think it's worth $20k, or that you just want to rent it from someone that buys it, by all means, this camera was meant for your model of working. I cannot argue with that. But for a lot of people, it just makes no sense to them, and I am one of those people. Granted, Cowpunk52 says the price is not set in stone. If that is the case, then this is the time for people to say what they feel. If 10,000 people signed the petition, Canon might really think about what they want their profit margin to be. If 30 people sign it, then those 30 people, including myself, are in a vast minority and don't matter. I'd not have even started this if I didn't hear such a huge number of people just absolutely shocked by the price tag. I *wish* it were $5k to $6k, but I don't see that as realistic either.

And I highly doubt a $10k camera would be really considered personal. That's a lot of money for a lot of people.
 
The Canon 5D and 7D shine. There have not been major price reductions or rebates. Why would Canon hurt its 5D and 7D sales by releasing a new camera? Might a lesson be in the fact that the iPhone destroyed iPod sales? I don't know.
 
A lot of comparisons have been made to the AF100, or the FS100 or the F3. Sure, these cameras have much better specs than the C300, but to my eye, they are miles away from the Canon's look. When it comes to highlights, these cameras are just plain awful. And you can't make an image be cinematic with bad highlights. That's what makes it video.

This is sensor design, and this alone makes a camera an option for cinematic use. Much as the 5D was chosen by the film people, that were willing to deal with all its limitations, but still preferred it to any other camera with much better tech options. Because the 5D/7D looked fantastic! The others don't.

Its all about the look.

And this is something that people don't ever discuss. Its always all about specs. Of course that's important. But what makes it fly its sensor design. How it reacts to the light, and how it's processed. How the highlights perform, how the tonal gradation is smooth across all index points. This is what makes or breaks a cinematic look. Not 4k!

Sure, I too, was mostly disappointed with its 8bit output. I thought that was a mistake. But the sensor does get the 10bit, although it only outputs at 8. I don't have a clue weather that's good or redundant. But the truth of the matter is, the footage looks good. And I can't wait to see talented DPs and directors use this camera with budget and see where they can take it.

Neither the Pany or the Sony FS100 have been embraced by the film industry. Why? They don't look cinematic. They have all the right specs, but they lack in style.

And that's as simple as that. And that's where I feel the C300 delivered big time. Is it worth 16K? Most probably not. But hey, its a business. Time will tell if that's a big mistake or not.

Without even people realizing it, RED has made everyone play their game. Its all about the numbers!

Well, its not all about numbers. Its about the look. Its about how 'cinematic' an image is. Red One had amazing specs, but everyone knew it looked awful. And many people preferred the 5D! Why did they improve their sensor if the Mysterium was already the best? It wasn't. It only output at 8bit also. So, the 4K was just that. A number. And it still is.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I disagree strongly. While the Red One had a host of issues, when a film showed up for me to score, I called the editor because I had to know what camera it was, it looked FANTASTIC. It was a Red One before the MX. It was absolutely beautiful. I also thought that Book of Eli looked great, and when I saw it was on a Red, I wasn't surprised. I don't buy into a spec game based on what other people think is important, I base it on what I deal with editing/compositing material, it's that simple.

Why would ANYONE with a big budget use the AF100 or FS100 for theatrical release when you could be using an Alexa in that ball-park. If I were actually going for the movie theatre, my FS100 would be the last camera I'd use. Both it and the AF100 lack in resolution. I've seen them blown up, and I know what they look like.

'Cinematic' is a nefarious term that doesn't mean anything. It's about aesthetic these days, and not so much about the technology. If someone cannot make an FS100 or AF100 look cinematic, the problem is with them, NOT the camera. For the same reason the 7D or 5D or GH2 or any other cheap camera can be made to look cinematic. The C300 isn't going to magically put the right lights in the scene. It's not going to setup the composition, or set the camera at the right high to portray the message you are trying to give. THAT is what cinematic is.

I've seen the EX1 shoot cinematic footage with a 35mm adapter. I've seen an HVX shoot cinematic footage with a 35mm adapter.

And it is true, time will tell! :)
 
Rick Burnett said:
Not necessarily, as I've seen plenty of material get projected through a projector that has a luminance range that can hide some of that posterization. I have an Epson projector that displays 1080p that I've noticed this on when I show some stuff I see posterization on where I edit (using Mac 30" screens). I'm not saying I didn't enjoy what was shot, and that I am not satisfied with what quality I've seen so far, it does look nice, but does it look $20k nice? Compared to footage I've seen off of the F3, AF100 or FS100? No, not seeing that yet.
Click to expand...

I'm quite intrigued Rick, what camera costing under $20k have you seen better looking in-camera footage from? The dynamic range and tonality in the bright desert shots from the Mobius short (especially the shots where people had harsh shadows across their faces) seemed a clear step above the Af100, FS100, and non-SLOGged F3 footage I've seen.
 
Grug said:
I'm quite intrigued Rick, what camera costing under $20k have you seen better looking in-camera footage from? The dynamic range and tonality in the bright desert shots from the Mobius short (especially the shots where people had harsh shadows across their faces) seemed a clear step above the Af100, FS100, and non-SLOGged F3 footage I've seen.
Click to expand...

The C300 is rated at having 12-stops of DR. That's a stop and a bit more than both the AF100 and FS100. So without question, you can get a stop more range out of the C300. The same range could be obtained from the F3 non-slog which gets up to 12 stops as well. Just because no one has done the same exact shot doesn't mean it isn't possible, inductive reasoning isn't very scientific. With SLog on the F3 you get 13.5+ stops.

But that said, I've shot in full sun with the AF100 and I was never worried about getting the shot or detail in the shadows. Same with the FS100.

What I saw with the C300 that to me really made it shine was the rolling shutter performance and detail in the scenes. That was impressive to me.
 
Given that half of the industrialised world is already in a depression and the rest of the world is on it's way there I'm not prepared to spend any more than $5000 on a new camera. And if it's a slightly flawed camera no more than $3000. Even my $600 Sony NEX-5N can do 60p 1080p. It's heavily compressed but a hack could soon fix that. Does the C300 produce images 10x better than a 5D, NEX-5N, or GH2? No way. So why would I pay 10x as much for it? Perhaps Canon will come to their senses and put a reasonable price tag on the cine DSLR.
 
Okay, so I spent the time going extensively through Canon's additional information on the C300 and I'm not sure what bubble they are living inside, but their statements and numbers just speak marketing to me. I've looked through sample images, I've read through detailed descriptions of what they offer, and I am sorry, but I am certainly seeing less and less of this perceived value at $20k or even close to it.

First, let's talk about their claim of having the lowest noise of any camera in or near their class. Now granted, I am going to be giving company offered measurements of SNR, but, until the C300 is out for test, that's all I really have to go on.

Canon claims the C300 has an SNR of 54dB. You know what else has that range? EX1 and the FS100.

You know who has an SNR of 64dB? Sony F3.

Canon also claims the base sensitivity of the C300 is ISO850, yet, if your SNR is 54dB, you are still going to be limited by the same amount of noise that say the FS100 is going to be limited too. (Which in truth, the FS100 is AMAZING at low noise, but the F3 is even SUBSTANTIALLY better if the measurements were done the same by Sony).

Further, Canon claims this huge range of ISO you can use. Their ISO20k is +30dB of gain. The FS100 can go to 30dB of gain as well. Granted, the C300 if really ISO850 will gain up further, but, if they have the same SNR, then you are going to get the same level of noise for 30dB in both.

I looked through many of their high gain images on their website and I see noise that looks a lot more consistent with what I see in other Canon cameras. In fact, it looks LESS like grain and more like digital noise, which contains chromatic elements. Look at the ISO20k shots on the website. Look at the range of colors in the sky with the woman at night. Now go shoot at ISO3200 at night with a 7D and look at the colors. Then, when you are done with that, go shoot the AF100 and look at the noise signature. If ANYONE has some nice looking noise, Panasonic has come the closest to me for grain look. Grain gives a noise that is monochromatic to the color under it.

In fact, I think the +30dB footage I have seen out of the FS100 even has a more grain like look to it than what Canon has shown so far.

Further, let's take a look at one of their examples of using Canon log:

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2011/understand_log_gamma.shtml?categoryId=224

Take a look at the color corrected image of the guy on the bicycle with the buildings behind him. The image looks horrible to me, and it looks more like video than anything I've seen from the C300 yet. I point this out not because I think the C300 cannot produce good images, it's that the quality of the shoot is in who does the color correction, not what the camera can do. This shot looks like the same shots you could get out of even a DSLR with the lack of saturation in the image.

Which finally brings me to log. I've read and re-read what Canon has to say about the log format, and I've come to the conclusion that what they claim is "almost like raw" just indicates to me that they don't know what raw really is. Log is about preserving as much detail as you can in an image so that decisions on color correction can be pushed to the post flow instead of making those decisions on set. Look at a typical response curve for a camera not using log and what do you see, you see compression in the shadows and the highlights, with the rest of the range getting used for the regular detail. With log, instead of crushing all the data you spread it out flat so that you don't allow the highlights or the shadows to be compressed into the bottom end or top end, which is why you see so little in absolute white, and so little in the absolute black. It's no longer crushed.

The problem is, if you remain in 8-bit when you do this, it's not like you magically get more values to work with. So, for a hypothetical example, if you crushed your shadows into 25 bits and your hilights into 25 bits, then you'd have 200 bits in between to represent all the rest of the image. But, if you shoot log and flatten out the shadows and highlights of the original 13-bit and 11-bit of the sensor, then let's say the shadows and hilights take 50-bits of range. Now you are left with 150 bits for the rest of the image. (I am using 250 instead of 255 to make it easier to talk about). Sure, this gives you more freedom to do different things with your highlights and shadows, but for the regular tonal range, you are giving up information. You are going to quantize down to a lower bit amount for that range. This isn't rocket science, it's pretty straightforward.

With a camera that shoots log and 10-bit, you don't have to make that concession, you get to retain MUCH MORE of the middle content while getting more shadow and hilight detail recorded as well. Yes, you will be going to 8-bit as a final render, but that's not the point. With 10-bit and log, you are able to save decisions on what to do with the top and bottom range of your image AND retain all the other information as well.

If someone wants log capability, they should be going towards the F3 and actually get a log output that makes sense.
 
RE 1st bit: Don't understand... you say that the C300 at 20,000 ISO looks like ISO3200 7D footage? And that you like AF100 grain?

RE 2nd bit: Have to agree there - the guy on the bike is a terrible, terrible shot :)

RE 3rd bit: I think you still have shadow and knee controls even if you're shooting log. So you can still put the extreme highlights and shadows into the 25 bits at the top and bottom if you want.

I agree that the F3 seems to have technically the best log implementation if you use an outboard recorder.
If you're not using an outboard recorder, C300 seems to be better technically because of less compression though.
Then there's the whole issue of what if the C300 sensor is better, and that compensates for the F3's technically 10bit log implementation?

Thing is... considering the market (HOLLYWOOD) - if I'm on a big Hollywood film shooting to an outboard recorder, why the hell am I using an F3, not an Alexa or F65 (or RED)?

Now if I want something lightweight and small for a C camera - car mount, for example... now we are restricted to looking at smaller cams: 5DMk2, F3 with internal recording (on the heavy side), AF100, FS100, GoPro... and C300.

Can you see now how C300 looks to be the natural winner for that situation? And given the fact that the camera got launched in frikkin' Paramount studios, and everyone chatted for ages about how small and light it was (as well as how great the footage looked), why don't you think that this is its natural application?

Methinks for now, stop looking at specs and accept the camera for what it seems to be designed to be - maximum image quality and usability, in an insanely lightweight, small, low-power package, priced for the rental market?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Last edited:
Ok, I understand. Rick, you're clearly a technician, not an 'artist'. DPs and directors choose the camera mainly for its look, for its aesthetic. That's why no one is shooting commercials or TV shows with the AF or the FS100, and they still are with the 5D! Worldwide!

You can search all you want on Canon's papers, but they showed the world what's really about for paid film makers. Aesthetics! And no, a cinematic look its not an abstract concept. For you it might be, but for most DP's its not. They know what a 'cinematic' look is when they see it. I certainly do. As I would never, ever take a chance at shooting a commercial with a FS, AF100 or even the F3.

Squig, are you seriously comparing a Nex with the C300? Most people here clearly don't make a living out of their artistic craft. You can't really make some of the statements here and still be actively working as a DP or a director. Please, no offense to anyone if that's the case, but I find it ridiculous that someone who gets paid for his artistic good taste and technical know how, can actually say the Red One looked awesome or that a Nex its a more worthwhile camera than a C300.

Sorry but I had to say it.
 
Rick Burnett said:
'Cinematic' is a nefarious term that doesn't mean anything. It's about aesthetic these days, and not so much about the technology. If someone cannot make an FS100 or AF100 look cinematic, the problem is with them, NOT the camera. For the same reason the 7D or 5D or GH2 or any other cheap camera can be made to look cinematic. The C300 isn't going to magically put the right lights in the scene. It's not going to setup the composition, or set the camera at the right high to portray the message you are trying to give. THAT is what cinematic is.
Click to expand...

Right on the mark.
 
Rick Burnett said:
'Cinematic' is a nefarious term that doesn't mean anything. It's about aesthetic these days, and not so much about the technology. If someone cannot make an FS100 or AF100 look cinematic, the problem is with them, NOT the camera. For the same reason the 7D or 5D or GH2 or any other cheap camera can be made to look cinematic. The C300 isn't going to magically put the right lights in the scene. It's not going to setup the composition, or set the camera at the right high to portray the message you are trying to give. THAT is what cinematic is.
Click to expand...

No its not. That's cinematic language.

Get it right. :happy:
 
Nuno Dias said:
Ok, I understand. Rick, you're clearly a technician, not an 'artist'. DPs and directors choose the camera mainly for its look, for its aesthetic. That's why no one is shooting commercials or TV shows with the AF or the FS100, and they still are with the 5D! Worldwide!

You can search all you want on Canon's papers, but they showed the world what's really about for paid film makers. Aesthetics! And no, a cinematic look its not an abstract concept. For you it might be, but for most DP's its not. They know what a 'cinematic' look is when they see it. I certainly do. As I would never, ever take a chance at shooting a commercial with a FS, AF100 or even the F3.

Squig, are you seriously comparing a Nex with the C300? Most people here clearly don't make a living out of their artistic craft. You can't really make some of the statements here and still be actively working as a DP or a director. Please, no offense to anyone if that's the case, but I find it ridiculous that someone who gets paid for his artistic good taste and technical know how, can actually say the Red One looked awesome or that a Nex its a more worthwhile camera than a C300.

Sorry but I had to say it.
Click to expand...


I am not really sure that we should be getting into who's an artist or not. Having you seen either of these people's work? Seems pretty judgemental and arbitrary to me. Just because someone talks about his tools or his craft does not mean that he is merely a craftsman or a tech head as opposed to an artist.

Personally, I don't think that Canon showed the world anything about aesthetics. Most of the images I have seen look trite and hackneyed. The C300 doesn't represent anything to me more than a half measure. At 20K, I would expect a lot more. As someone who cares deeply about grading and aesthetic look in order to support the story being told, the fact that one would still be working with an 8 bit image for that price (no matter how innovative the sensor technology is) is ridiculous. I don't care who's name is written on the side of the camera. That doesn't cut it.
 
bruceallen said:
RE 1st bit: Don't understand... you say that the C300 at 20,000 ISO looks like ISO3200 7D footage? And that you like AF100 grain?

I agree that the F3 seems to have technically the best log implementation if you use an outboard recorder.
If you're not using an outboard recorder, C300 seems to be better technically because of less compression though.
Then there's the whole issue of what if the C300 sensor is better, and that compensates for the F3's technically 10bit log implementation?

Now if I want something lightweight and small for a C camera - car mount, for example... now we are restricted to looking at smaller cams: 5DMk2, F3 with internal recording (on the heavy side), AF100, FS100, GoPro... and C300.

Can you see now how C300 looks to be the natural winner for that situation? And given the fact that the camera got launched in frikkin' Paramount studios, and everyone chatted for ages about how small and light it was (as well as how great the footage looked), why don't you think that this is its natural application?

Methinks for now, stop looking at specs and accept the camera for what it seems to be designed to be - maximum image quality and usability, in an insanely lightweight, small, low-power package, priced for the rental market?

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that if you look at the noise structure of the C300 at ISO20k and the noise structure of the 7D at ISO3.2k, because in both cases you can see the noise easily, that the chromatic structure of the noise is very similar. To me, neither of them look really like film grain to me. They do look better than traditional noise in older cameras, but reading Canon claim that they tried to make the noise look more grain like looks identical to me from what I see in the 7D. Whereas if I look at the noise on the AF100, there is no chromatic element mostly, to me it looks more like grain would. The same thing with the FS100. It doesn't take on a chromatic component which just SCREAMS digital.

I agree that the size of the C300 is nice. It actually sits right between the AF100 and FS100 in size as I've actually compiled all the specs on most of the cameras below $20k that I could find to compare a few days ago (sadly, I cannot find Scarlet-X specs, which are the same as Epic, but given the brain is 5lbs, it's a very heavy camera and I don't consider in the same weight class). It also weights considerably more than the FS100 with battery, LCD and handgrip. (which Canon says is 6lbs).

If other people want to accept what Canon is trying to sell, hey that's fine. This whole thread is started because people have the same questions I do, and they too think it makes no sense for what you get. It's not like I am a single voice speaking out, it's starting to sound like Alderaan in here :)

And pertaining to your images you posted, I already told you why the test fails to demonstrate the issue. Your images have TONS of grain in them. The issue with 8-bit banding involves cameras that are extremely clean and have VERY LITTLE noise. It is in those tests where you can easily see the issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top