Amazing. The specs looking at you kid!
open letter to CANON: A new strategy
- Thread starter VGurcu
- Start date
Amazing. The specs looking at you kid!
You don't really have to transcode anymore if you're editing on Premiere. I switched over from Final Cut after we shot a feature on Red I was going to cut as they've added R3D support. You can edit through the debayer at 1/4 or 1/8th quality (which at 1/4 is basically 1080p I might add) so a monster system or Red Rocket aren't needed if you can't afford it.
visugeek
Well-known member
Having spent Friday afternoon at the Canon Event at Paramount, getting to see all of the Sample films on the big screen, and speaking with Sam Nicholson about his Xxit film as well as Canon reps about the camera I would like to share a bit of info.
Except for parts of Sword, the films all looked amazing. Max is Back was the most impressive and most filmic on the big screen. It had really nicely modeled shadows and lots of subtly to the lighting that really showed off the Canon log. The highlights had nice rolloff in all of the films, and the noise in the shadows was really hard to spot. I didn't notice any rolling shutter issues either which is huge!
Canon's reps say this camera isn't aimed at DSLR users to purchase. They know it's expensive. They are aiming for the rental house market...that is their target audience. They would love for lots of folks to buy it, but they know that is not realistic.
The noise reduction on the new chip is amazingly good. At 16,000, the noise is better than my 7D at 1600. Base ISO is 850, not 160 like on the current DSLRs. It has 3 built in ND filters, 2, 4, and 6 stops. On Xxit, they had to turn off the lights for the Green screen because it created too much spill and still got fantastic keys from the 8-bit HDSDI 4:2:2 signal. Sam was happier with the green screen signal to noise ration on the C300 than he is with any of the larger more expensive cameras that he has at his disposal at 4:4:4, and he has the good ones. Was he BSing me? I don't think so, I used to work for him back in the early and 1990's as a model maker, so we have a bit of a history.
The internal processor of the C300 takes the 12-bit gamma curve and squeezes it into an 8-bit color space so that it will fit into the Mpeg-2 wrapper. Once it's 8-bit it's split out to the Mpeg-2 and HDSDI respectively. Could they just send the 12bit RAW to the HDSDI? I think they can...would they? Apparently not, which sucks because having that extra data for Color Correction, VFX, or anything else would be great. I still think the images that the sample films were able to create were stunning, and if these cinematographers were able to workaround this issue, it can be done.
You can find some of this info published here:
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/misc/cinemaEOS_faq.shtml
When I asked about rolling shutter, everybody on the Xxit panel grinned. They had been very concerned about it, particularly due to the high speed bike chases and the minimal mounts used to attach the cameras to the bikes. To them it had not been an issue, in fact the moderator shared that none of the productions had rolling shutter issues. Having just had to stabilize shots for a project shot with an Epic badly mounted to a helicopter, I was very happy to hear this.
I have to agree with the subject of the thread. I wish the c300 was cheaper and the HDSDI had at least a 10-bit signal feeding it for CC and VFX but I don't see either of those things happeneing. Why? Because when they do get there, they think people will stop buying cameras so they want to keep incrementing it forever. What's important to me is it's a better camera than my 7D and I would love to shoot a project with it. My Canon glass will work with it, so will all of my rails, follow focus, mattebox, and the rest of my Camera accessories. I won't own one, but I can see myself renting one for some projects until the next big technology jump or price drop, or both.
Ideally a 10 or 12-bit uncompressed 4:4:4 camera that can shoot at 120fps at 2k without cropping will be created someday for under $10K. It will happen about the same time I can get an all electric SUV for $15k. : )
My .02.
Cheers!
Except for parts of Sword, the films all looked amazing. Max is Back was the most impressive and most filmic on the big screen. It had really nicely modeled shadows and lots of subtly to the lighting that really showed off the Canon log. The highlights had nice rolloff in all of the films, and the noise in the shadows was really hard to spot. I didn't notice any rolling shutter issues either which is huge!
Canon's reps say this camera isn't aimed at DSLR users to purchase. They know it's expensive. They are aiming for the rental house market...that is their target audience. They would love for lots of folks to buy it, but they know that is not realistic.
The noise reduction on the new chip is amazingly good. At 16,000, the noise is better than my 7D at 1600. Base ISO is 850, not 160 like on the current DSLRs. It has 3 built in ND filters, 2, 4, and 6 stops. On Xxit, they had to turn off the lights for the Green screen because it created too much spill and still got fantastic keys from the 8-bit HDSDI 4:2:2 signal. Sam was happier with the green screen signal to noise ration on the C300 than he is with any of the larger more expensive cameras that he has at his disposal at 4:4:4, and he has the good ones. Was he BSing me? I don't think so, I used to work for him back in the early and 1990's as a model maker, so we have a bit of a history.
The internal processor of the C300 takes the 12-bit gamma curve and squeezes it into an 8-bit color space so that it will fit into the Mpeg-2 wrapper. Once it's 8-bit it's split out to the Mpeg-2 and HDSDI respectively. Could they just send the 12bit RAW to the HDSDI? I think they can...would they? Apparently not, which sucks because having that extra data for Color Correction, VFX, or anything else would be great. I still think the images that the sample films were able to create were stunning, and if these cinematographers were able to workaround this issue, it can be done.
You can find some of this info published here:
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/misc/cinemaEOS_faq.shtml
When I asked about rolling shutter, everybody on the Xxit panel grinned. They had been very concerned about it, particularly due to the high speed bike chases and the minimal mounts used to attach the cameras to the bikes. To them it had not been an issue, in fact the moderator shared that none of the productions had rolling shutter issues. Having just had to stabilize shots for a project shot with an Epic badly mounted to a helicopter, I was very happy to hear this.
I have to agree with the subject of the thread. I wish the c300 was cheaper and the HDSDI had at least a 10-bit signal feeding it for CC and VFX but I don't see either of those things happeneing. Why? Because when they do get there, they think people will stop buying cameras so they want to keep incrementing it forever. What's important to me is it's a better camera than my 7D and I would love to shoot a project with it. My Canon glass will work with it, so will all of my rails, follow focus, mattebox, and the rest of my Camera accessories. I won't own one, but I can see myself renting one for some projects until the next big technology jump or price drop, or both.
Ideally a 10 or 12-bit uncompressed 4:4:4 camera that can shoot at 120fps at 2k without cropping will be created someday for under $10K. It will happen about the same time I can get an all electric SUV for $15k. : )
My .02.
Cheers!
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Really? Just because I have an in-depth knowledge of the technology means I can't be artistic as well? I hate to break it to you, but these aren't mutually exclusive properties that people have. People choose cameras for a lot of reasons, and many times they are technical just as much as aesthetic. I've listened to countless interviews with directors, like James Cameron, talking about the technology behind his decision to use a certain cameras. And that's just one example...I could give many.
You really don't think people are using the AF100 and FS100 to shoot commercials with? I think you need to expand your knowledge base because there are TONS of people shooting these two cameras on commercial work. I've seen the material they have shared. I also know there is some users shooting the FS100 for television work as well, on this board.
And I'm sorry you cannot grab the concept that a cinematic look is an aesthetic, because it is. You can shoot crap on the C300 just like ANY OTHER CAMERA THAT EXISTS. Have you seen overexposed film stock? It looks horrible. It DOES NOT look cinematic. It looks like a home movie gone bad. Aesthetic and abstract are not the same concept. Look at the image of the boy on the bike as I linked, it just goes to show in the wrong hands or poor color correction and you can get the same look as a DSLR.
If you can't shoot a commercial with an FS, AF or F3, but you think you can with a 5D, then really, how could anyone EVER argue with you. I've shot with a 5D, and I own a 7D that I know EXTREMELY well. I owned an AF100 and an FS100 and I've used all of these for paid work. The image quality out of the FS100 absolutely destroys the 5D image quality. And I'm not even talking rolling shutter issues (which the 5D is half as fast) or the moire on the 5D which is horrible beyond belief when an issue. I'm talking as simple as compression in the image, or artifacts with high detail changes. Or detail in general. Sorry, but if you can't see this difference in quality, which is so easy to see, the we are just not looking at the same thing. We shot a short with the 7D and the FS100 and the editor had to, in his words, dumb down the FS100 footage because the quality was so much better than the 7D.
And this talk about the Red One not looking good? I'm not saying it was perfect, but the material someone sent me post color corrected looked amazing. I've seen tons of great stuff from the Red One that I really enjoyed. You can say it all you want, but it really doesn't back any of your claims. Like the F3 not being used seriously. But at the end of the day, I went to the theatre and watched a film shot on the Red One. I watch television shows like "The Misfits" that is shot on the Red One. I think that gives the Red One quite a bit of "street cred"
And if you want to see something I've helped shoot, on 7Ds no less, then take a look at this miniseries:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMrwNz24j_g
At least watch through episode 3. The first two episodes weren't ever supposed to be serious as we were just testing out the 7D to see what it could do. Now we have 1.2 Million views on just episode one. Look at the like to dislike ratio. You tell me if people like the aesthetics of what we shot?
I only mention any of this because this is ALL with a 7D. No, it isn't perfect, and we will always have a lot to learn, but I'm willing to put my stuff out there and prove to people that the 7D can shoot great material. Yes, I dealt with lots of headaches with the 7D, but it was the right decision at the time (no AF or FS then) and I think the comments and response from our fan base is a good reality check as to what is important.
Just because the technical side doesn't matter to you doesn't negate others feelings when they see a product that seems grossly overpriced. I look at technology from an aesthetic AND a technical side. Sure, I can see the Scarlet-X probably shoots some great footage, but from a technical level, I don't want to deal with 4K resolution and post process debayer. Is that so wrong for me to take into consideration? I put these same questions to the C300 as well. I put these same questions to the FS100 and AF100 as well.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Thanks for sharing! It's always good to get more perspectives as well.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
I think the ISO 16K looks great, but it's also not perfect, and I can tell you that Vimeo compression is smoothing out the noise in the image because I've uploaded material to Vimeo and see the same issue. Really, it's H.264 that is doing that. Watch some of the darker areas of the scene, you can see the dancing blacks happening. With the FS100, if the scene is really dark, but that the actual colors of the scene aren't dark (meaning its just not illuminated), the FS100 does a great job as well. I'd say not as good looking at this test, but definitely better than most cameras.
Point this camera into the sky at night at ISO16K and I bet you will see the same level of noise you see in the shots show on the Canon website.
What's also interesting is to see the amount of slant in the image during the fast pan around 1:00. I can't wait to measure the rolling shutter on this camera as I am curious what it is. Having watched the videos, I definitely think it has the best rolling shutter performance I have seen yet on a non global shutter camera. I am going to guess around 6 to 7ms.
One strange thing I will say, this video is not as sharp as other videos posted from the C300 on Vimeo. It looks VERY soft to me in comparison.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
The turn around time in post. We shoot A LOT of extra footage when we shoot, and the time it would take to convert to 1080p all the footage we would shoot would be too much I feel for us, and getting a red rocket is out of the question at the moment. The other issue is that looking at the epic's low light performance compared to even my FS100 isn't that great, and given the Scarlet-X is the same sensor, it just wouldn't work with our shooting style.
I've thought long and hard about the Scarlet-X and I just can't justify it for many reasons. Sadly, weight is one of them as well. Battery life. SSD size. It's a great sounding camera, and it was a hard decision, but investment wise, it just doesn't make sense for our productions.
its probably because 5D is cheap comapred to the other cams.
also, dont be delusional. there are commercials that have been shot with the other cams.
I dont mind your canon fanboy-ism but you're just coming of as arrogant and rude.
imho, comparing the canon to scarlet or DSLRs is wrong.
as mentioned before, the hardware it totally different. DV3, not digit3 + (and more importanly) the sensor is totally new. Sony and any other developer/manufacturer in that field has had legacy hardware solutions - canon worked from scratch. This cam could be compared to the af101 OR the sony f3 as in:
Sony had some research and development done in "cine sensors" (please dont compare these sensors to those little 1/2 or 2/3 sensors, TOTALLY different ballgame) so releasing a f3 for such a price - I mean its basically a alexa for 23k (adding 5k recorder and 3.5k for the slog + streetprice of around 13-14k), is "doable"
panny used a "cheap" sensor that was "joint-developed" with the consumer-devision which is why you got a 5k $ cam.
with canon, we are talking TRUE 1080p, since you dont do debayering etc but use a 8mp image to reproduce a "true" 1080p (true here means its like the "true" film resolution: 2k red 2k blue 2k green = 2mp, red would call it 6k. . .)
please read this: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
if you havent already done so.
So what is a "4k or 16k" worth? Well i dont care how much "k" it is, when it comes from marketing. I need "TRUE" pixel count and spartial resolution, anything else is like "sensor is capable of 50mbit but i use a recorder and chose 240mbits" . . .
and what about the "sensor crop" of the scarlet? 2k on 60p sound great. . . but you have a sensor crop of 2/3 . . . wtf. . . 2/3 is so. . . 2005 ?
so one should take that into consideration (plus the whole "package ready to shoot" thing etc. . .
so those who say the canon is worth EVEN less than 10k $. . . why not giving it away to all those who pushed canon into hollywood by using the 5d? I mean red is generous and gives early adopters cheaper upgrades. . .
12-13k would be a great price for the canon, though streetprice is 16k which is VERY compatetive in terms of "actual image" quality when talking 1080p on a S35 (canon doesnt crop, so you actually have a full S35 sensor)
as mentioned before, the hardware it totally different. DV3, not digit3 + (and more importanly) the sensor is totally new. Sony and any other developer/manufacturer in that field has had legacy hardware solutions - canon worked from scratch. This cam could be compared to the af101 OR the sony f3 as in:
Sony had some research and development done in "cine sensors" (please dont compare these sensors to those little 1/2 or 2/3 sensors, TOTALLY different ballgame) so releasing a f3 for such a price - I mean its basically a alexa for 23k (adding 5k recorder and 3.5k for the slog + streetprice of around 13-14k), is "doable"
panny used a "cheap" sensor that was "joint-developed" with the consumer-devision which is why you got a 5k $ cam.
with canon, we are talking TRUE 1080p, since you dont do debayering etc but use a 8mp image to reproduce a "true" 1080p (true here means its like the "true" film resolution: 2k red 2k blue 2k green = 2mp, red would call it 6k. . .)
please read this: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels
if you havent already done so.
So what is a "4k or 16k" worth? Well i dont care how much "k" it is, when it comes from marketing. I need "TRUE" pixel count and spartial resolution, anything else is like "sensor is capable of 50mbit but i use a recorder and chose 240mbits" . . .
and what about the "sensor crop" of the scarlet? 2k on 60p sound great. . . but you have a sensor crop of 2/3 . . . wtf. . . 2/3 is so. . . 2005 ?
so one should take that into consideration (plus the whole "package ready to shoot" thing etc. . .
so those who say the canon is worth EVEN less than 10k $. . . why not giving it away to all those who pushed canon into hollywood by using the 5d? I mean red is generous and gives early adopters cheaper upgrades. . .
12-13k would be a great price for the canon, though streetprice is 16k which is VERY compatetive in terms of "actual image" quality when talking 1080p on a S35 (canon doesnt crop, so you actually have a full S35 sensor)
maranfilms
Veteran
The only way I see Canon changing the price is from an all out boycott. If everyone were to say, were not going to buy your c300, but were not going to buy ANYTHING Canon. even a copier, camcorder, alarm clock, whatever. As consumers, we feel we gave you the ability to be in the position your in. We sacrificed for you! Therefore you owe us at least a cam that has the features we need at a price we will pay. And it's not 16k, 13k or even 10k. If you want to sell your c300, it better be 3k. lol Wishful thinking huh 
The only way I see Canon changing the price is from an all out boycott. If everyone were to say, were not going to buy your c300, but were not going to buy ANYTHING Canon. even a copier, camcorder, alarm clock, whatever. As consumers, we feel we gave you the ability to be in the position your in. We sacrificed for you! Therefore you owe us at least a cam that has the features we need at a price we will pay. And it's not 16k, 13k or even 10k. If you want to sell your c300, it better be 3k. lol Wishful thinking huh
You cannot be serious, can you?
Erich Ocean
Active member
I can't believe all the bitching around here: this camera is enormously competitive at an estimated $16K street price. The EF version will rent like crazy, and filmmakers will be spec'ing this camera left and right. Post is so much easier than with RED (which is what hurts everyone who uses the RED), and it's got everything built in – even ND! The media is dirt cheap and widely available, the codec is 4:2:2, the sensor is 4K and has INSANE low light performance.
The simple fact is that every additional bit and bob you need on a shoot adds to the budget. The C300 comes with everything but the glass, which a quick trip to lensrentals.com will fix. In fact, they'll probably rent the camera too.
The best thing about the Scarlet-X announcement is it'll keep the rental price for the C300 down.
The simple fact is that every additional bit and bob you need on a shoot adds to the budget. The C300 comes with everything but the glass, which a quick trip to lensrentals.com will fix. In fact, they'll probably rent the camera too.
The best thing about the Scarlet-X announcement is it'll keep the rental price for the C300 down.
And there in lies the rub. I don't think Canon factored in the general ignorance of the populus. I for one would much rather have a sensor that gave an amazing image rather than worry about playing the numbers game that RED fanboys are so fond of.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Do you actually read what you post? Here's a quote from the article:
"That being said – I’d love to see Canon consider leveling the price out of their C300 – because I’d like to see it in as many hands out there as possible. The camera is perfect for features, indies, and documentaries (probably the best large-sensor documentary camera in the world today.) I do have to respect them for not racing to the "bottom" if you will – in terms of setting the price too low.Nonetheless – the goal should always to bring the price down of a base camera closer to what I consider to be the "magical" $10,000 price level."
Not that he doesn't mention others times that he thinks the $20k is okay, but clearly this is confliction in what he feels about the price as well.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Spot on Rick. Canon needed only to slap in a S35 sensor, maybe add a grand for the "R & D," and BAM! They'd be kings of the indie film making/event world for another 2 or 3 years.
Instead, we got what we got. A wildly over-priced camera aimed at... I'm not sure who. Hard to see large sfx driven films giving up their RED EPICs for this camera. Hard to see lower budget shows/TV productions giving up their Pannys and Sonys. While I agree with those who say Canon doesn't owe us anything, I'd remind them that that's a two way street.
Canon is a lens company as well, they might have just cost themselves millions of dollars in lost sales from this obvious misstep. Countless Canon DSLR owners who have been sitting on the fence for the announcement are suddenly re-evaluating the AF/FS100 - And whatever loyalty they may have had for Canon.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
In truth, that is a position I am in. I own an FS100, there is no electronic mount for the EF lenses. I have to make a decision whether or not to stay with Canon lenses or switch over to say Nikon lenses instead. (Or other lenses). Given I like having a stills camera with the same lenses as it cuts the number of lenses I have significantly down, I really do like my 7D as a stills camera.
Tough decisions, but having an electronic controlled Canon lens is a waste for me right now. I'm tired of no DoF control with them.