open letter to CANON: A new strategy

this thread is funny, i cant believe you actually think canon is gonna listen to you. they'll list it 20, it will sell for 16 and they are going to sell a ton, the small percentage of the market thats on dvxuser might not, but there are so many people out there who will buy the c300 and are happy its 16k. so id say stop now, save your time for something productive.
 
eheath said:
this thread is funny, i cant believe you actually think canon is gonna listen to you.
Click to expand...

This is sort of the whole point.

I might be wrong but I don't think they will "sell a ton" of them either. Not in this economy.

By now everyone realizes that the 5d video thang was a fluke and completely messed up Canon's keen sense of product-line integrity and incremental feature tier-ing. Now they are getting their house in order.

I do agree that if there are any second thoughts about the price structure back at HQ they will have to "take something off" the current C300 and offer a C300-lite, I would expect a non 4:2:2/non SDI, EF mount only version for around $12K
 
starcentral said:
Mostly sensational statements, but.........

Do you know the F3 has a built in auto-exposure tool called TLCS that will allow a user specific amount of gain or shutter speed to be introduced to maintain exposure? Do you know how many uses that has from ENG, time lapse shooting, etc..? The C300 does not have this.

The F3 can be unlocked to 444 RGB output albeit with off-board device and battery - but it's an option. This makes it possible to go through serious grading and post production process with extreme pushing or pulling over 14.5 stops of dynamic range. This exceeds film in lattitude and gives you full post processing optons you would expect to have if working with film. The C300 does not have this.

The F3 can shoot in variable frame rates from 1 to 60p and after 30p resolution drops to 1440x1080. The C300 can only shoot 60p in 720p mode.

Lens mount. F3 has E-mount for variety of lens mount options. The C300 you must chose PL or EF. You buy the C300 because you own a set of EF lenses, but wait, someone wants to hire you for a cine shoot and you can't even rent industry standard Cookes or ARRIs to use.

White balance: presets on the F3 using picture profiles and ability to hold two custom white balance settings using AWB. The C300 does not have auto white balance period.

In the end you can't beat 422, or its form factor and the ability to use any EF glass you already own for the C300 - but you can beat its price. EF glass owners definitely have a tough decision to make, no doubt.,
Click to expand...

Um... this mount comparison you made is terribly biased.
The F3 comes w/ a PL mount, does it not? Not all glass is PL based, as far as I recall. So why on the opposite spectrum, why would it be so hard to simply purchase a PL adapter for the C300? And aren't there just as many ___to-EF adapters as well? If not more than for the PL base considering when you factor in still lenses.
 
I also shoot other things besides broadcast documentary. In fact, if you turn on your television, you might notice that there are literally hundreds of narrative programs being broadcast daily straight to yourtelevision! I know, shocking, right? And these narrative programs have amazing DP's and camera operators on them - who would think that such a trashy medium such as television would want cinematic quality? And get THIS: some production companies have the gall to shoot that junk in HOLLYWOOD! I was just as surprised as you are. [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

If you are using a cine camera(AF/FS100, C300 etc) in combination with actual broadcast cameras (there is no way C300 will be your main camera btw) there isnt really much of an advantage to have on-board XMF codec, simply because most probably all those various codecs coming from different cameras will have be transcoded to a codec (say prores 4:2:2 for FCP) of the editor's choice. And yes you can convert 4:2:0 MPEG2 to 4:2:2 no problem, it is not what you shoot but what you present to broadcasters
{If the station insist on receiving an 'approved' codec regardless, and if the time is an issue for conversion then yes I understand the importance)
 
The C300 would be a hit if it was $5,995.....
Sorry, the MSRP is enough to not even waste time looking at C300 footage.
 
HVXguy said:
The C300 would be a hit if it was $5,995.....
Sorry, the MSRP is enough to not even waste time looking at C300 footage.
Click to expand...

I'll do you one better: the C300 would be a hit if it was $599. Imagine it: a full-on S35mm cinema camera for less than 600 hundred bucks!

Sorry, if it's not cheaper than a GH2, it's not even worth looking at the footage.
 
VGurcu said:
it is not what you shoot but what you present to broadcasters {If the station insist on receiving an 'approved' codec regardless, and if the time is an issue for conversion then yes I understand the importance)
Click to expand...
100% incorrect. Aquisition standards are in place for a reason. And i see no reason to not use a C300 as an A-cam on narrative broadcast - the sensor is obviously up to the task, as is the on-camera codec.
 
Last edited:
Erich Ocean said:
I'll do you one better: the C300 would be a hit if it was $599. Imagine it: a full-on S35mm cinema camera for less than 600 hundred bucks!

Sorry, if it's not cheaper than a GH2, it's not even worth looking at the footage.
Click to expand...

These posts are just stupid. You're missing the point. We're not just making up a number for the sense of making up a number... the suggested price of $5-6k is based on what THE EXISTING technology (besides the sensor) that's in the C300 costs. The DigicIII in the C300 is 3 YEARS OLD. That's just archaic in processor world. Even if the DigicV isn't made for video... it has 14x the processing power of the 5D's DigicIV, which does "decent" video processing. The 1DX has TWO of them... for $7k. There is no reason to be using an old XF processor when they could be running DUAL next gen processors and cranking out 4:4:4 10-bit up to 30fps and 4:2:2 at 60fps... there is just no reason except canon wants to drag out this "cinema" market.

Quit buying into their BS and wise up to the fact that this isn't about "image" and "professionalism"... it's about recycling and marking up old technology for no reason other than marketing.
 
GH2user said:
There is no reason to be using an old XF processor when they could be running DUAL next gen processors and cranking out 4:4:4 10-bit up to 30fps and 4:2:2 at 60fps... there is just no reason except canon wants to drag out this "cinema" market.
Click to expand...
You clearly have a very rare and vast amount of insight into the state of video technology! I assume you can back this claim up with some facts?
 
My biggest complaint with the price tag is how am I going to justify to my clients why they should pay more for this 20k image versus the 3k 5d image. I think clients have got accustomed to our cheap overhead. I think most people will wait on the new HDSLR options as thats what i'm doing.
 
cowpunk52 said:
You clearly have a very rare and vast amount of insight into the state of video technology! I assume you can back this claim up with some facts?
Click to expand...

uhhh... have you seen the specs on the 1DX? It's running TWO DigicV's (next gen processing)... the price is $7k. Canon stated that EACH DigicV has 14x the processing power of a 5DII's DigicIV. They're clearly just using old parts in the C300 because they can. I don't really know what else to explain here?
 
You're assuming the DigicV chip can used in the C300. But no one knows that except for Canon because this is proprietary information.
 
GH2user said:
uhhh... have you seen the specs on the 1DX? It's running TWO DigicV's (next gen processing)... the price is $7k. Canon stated that EACH DigicV has 14x the processing power of a 5DII's DigicIV. They're clearly just using old parts in the C300 because they can. I don't really know what else to explain here?
Click to expand...

You do realize that digic and digicdv are completely different processors optimized for very different tasks, don't you? And you do realize there is a difference in how Canon's still cameras handle video and how their video cameras handle it, especially in regards to artifacts and resolving limitations, right? And you do know that even with it's dual digic 5 processors, Canon is only claiming 'reduced' aliasing and moire problems, right? Can you explain to me why? After all, it's got 14x the processing power of a 5d, so it should be giving me a picture 14x better! Right?

I know you're upset about the price, but pure conjecture about technical possibilities does not make you justified.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Can you explain to me why? After all, it's got 14x the processing power of a 5d, so it should be giving me a picture 14x better! Right?
Click to expand...

No, not 14x better. But since the 5D's DigivIV is also not optimized for video and can record 50mb/s 4:2:0 video... then surly something with 14x the power could do 4:2:2 with real down-sampling. The GH2's doing real down-sampling... the tech is there...

The DigicIII may be "optimized" for video... but tech is tech. There's no way it's better at handling video than a 2011 processor, regardless of it's purpose. You're just buying into the jargon.
 
GH2user, you just don't understand. The way the 4k sensor records R, G and B signals separately with no debayering , the DigicDV processor actually thinks it’s a 3-chip sensor. It’s designed in that same way. That's another major reason why it was used.
 
Piolet said:
GH2user, you just don't understand. The way the 4k sensor records R, G and B signals separately with no debayering , the DigicDV processor actually thinks it’s a 3-chip sensor. It’s designed in that same way. That's another major reason why it was used.
Click to expand...

I'm actually thinking that it does this because the old processor CAN'T down-sample and was only developed for a native 1080p readout...

I would be willing to bet that if the C300 was developed with dual DigicV's (like the 1Dx) it would capable of 4:4:4 1080p up to 60fps, or 4:2:2 up to 120fps.
 
fingersonface said:
My biggest complaint with the price tag is how am I going to justify to my clients why they should pay more for this 20k image versus the 3k 5d image. I think clients have got accustomed to our cheap overhead. I think most people will wait on the new HDSLR options as thats what i'm doing.
Click to expand...

You're kind of missing the point if you're "waiting" for something new in the DSLR shelf...
 
i think canon video department is heading in the right direction. it's advancing at a very rapid pace, but it still has to be incremental. they have to make prototypes of what they can achieve and not waste too much r&d. but they are trying to sell new cine lens and they will make the cameras to go with it.

replacing some components with newer parts in the near future would not be so difficult for them. and 8bit image quality from canon can go head to head with anything in the same price range, in post you can go 16bit uncompressed until the export if you want. it's a video camera, color reproduction and noise is more important than anything else.

and it's an 8 bit file from a (14bit?) process and no de-bayering of an s35 sensor. and if canon says it's a s35 sensor, you don't have to test the camera to see if a cine lens will work without vignetting and with a slightly different fov. and the image resolution will be standard and you won't have to re-size and re-compress the footage to the correct resolution.

if you look at the 1dx, across the whole process, with all the mechanics, moving parts, the processing, and data throughput of raw files. it's able to do consistent 12fps, and that's there flagship model that costs 7k and won't be release until 2012q1. so it would be a while for a dslr to catch up the the canon video cameras of the future.
 
Amr Rahmy said:
if you look at the 1dx, across the whole process, with all the mechanics, moving parts, the processing, and data throughput of raw files. it's able to do consistent 12fps, and that's there flagship model that costs 7k and won't be release until 2012q1. so it would be a while for a dslr to catch up the the canon video cameras of the future.
Click to expand...

It's actually 14 when the mirror is up. If you take away half of the megapixels you end up with 28fps 9mp sensor which is enough.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top