Which announcement were you more satisfied with?

[Razz16mm]

Actually, the C300 is smaller and lighter than the Scarlet. It likely will have better low-light performance.

"

Actually the Canon is about an inch larger in each dimension than Scarlet. Scarlet is 1.4 lbs heavier, but far more robust in its construction. With either of the titanium mounts, medium weight lenses that would require rails and support on the Canon don't need it on Scarlet.

For me a Scarlet can replace both a large sensor and small sensor video camera and a top line DSLR for stills. It has a lot more potential over a broader range of uses. If one can reasonably afford it, it is a better personal camera to own.
IMO the workflow issues are overblown. Any desktop workstation that can edit AVCHD 1080p smoothly in real time can handle Redcode just fine. Yes you will need more storage space and time for final rendering. If fast turn is an issue, for the price of a Redmag SSD you can throw a miniature Prores or DNXHD native DVR on the back of it, shoot it like any other HD video camera and record better footage than the Canon in a higher quality codec.

The only issues with color rendition I have seen with MX series Reds are those inflicted by the user. The range of grading possibilities with 16 bit raw footage is well beyond anything you will ever see out of an 8 bit video codec, log or not.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Again, I'm not saying that the camera doesn't have its uses - but what you're describing are niche uses. Shooting for 5-6 hours on a single battery and being able to stick the camera in awkward places aren't going to factor into most of the filming happening in the world. Cowpunk has a fair point about commercials and TV that need quick turnaround, but I just think the C300 is an odd animal for Canon to debut as its flagship cinema product.

I think that's just an indication that you're not the target market. Heck, DVXUser isn't really the target market IMO -- how many people on here are shooting Alexa now and looking for a DSL-sized B-cam without the traditional DSL limitations? Not most, at least, not if it costs more. Unless you can rent out your camera (perhaps along with yourself as the operator), the C300 is not meant for you.

The Scarlet is really the odd beast. There are a lot of shooters who believe, in effect, that the reason their footage doesn't look as good as it could is because it's not shot in 4K RAW. I personally think that's nonsense for anyone not shooting motion stills for print, but that's not going to convince anyone, so I don't try, and won't. I do think that people are spending their money on the wrong things by maxing out their CC for a Scarlet, but again, that's just me. We all have different tradeoffs and lessons to learn.

I think people who are inclined to like where Canon is going with the C300, and see how it fits into their future rental packages, are just trying to explain to the typical DVXUser why it exists, why it really is a very solid release from Canon with a lot to like, for the people the camera is intended for. Why the C300 will rent like crazy (and it will). And perhaps, like this post, why it's not meant for them to buy (which seems to be the assumption by most people here).

For the typical DVXUser, lensrentals.com will be renting the C300, should be ~$210/day for a four day shoot, dropping rapidly for longer shoots. That's a ton of camera for the price, and basically anyone who would have been shooting on a 7D on a feature with a budget over $10K (for everything, including camera) should, without question, use the C300 as their A-cam now, probably with a 5D or 1Dx (when it ships) as their B-cam.

My advice? Practice on your 7D, shoot a lot, and when you actually have some cash to shoot something good, rent a C300. You'll be thrilled with the results.

 

[Razz16mm]

Gunleik Groven shared an R3D still frame from one of his extreme lighting tests of Epic for people to play with grading. This is an example of why I so like Red and Redcode raw.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...a-Scarlet-X...&p=867299&viewfull=1#post867299

 

[cowpunk52]

Actually the Canon is about an inch larger in each dimension than Scarlet.

That's a bit misleading because you're taking the measurements of a box that does nothing on it's own. Once you add a battery, recording media and evf to the Scarlet you will have definitely exceeded the dimensions of the C300, which uses those options internally.

Scarlet is 1.4 lbs heavier, but far more robust in its construction.

Again, misleading - and speculative. Canon's magnesium alloy is certainly no slouch and is proven to stand up to very robust use. The camera is also dust and splash proof with dozens of rubber seals around it's buttons and connections

 

[david_p]

dont like the cropping on the ScarletX. framerates for that much money with the massive cropping is unappealing at any price. no footage yet and i cant believe people are plopping down that much cash for something that technically hasnt proven itself yet. sure they say exactly like the Epic but im not that trusting. no thanks!

C300 is too much cash though but like much more about this camera than the X. low light shooting should smoke everyone else from what ive seen so far. also, Canon's pixel array is curious and interesting. grain patterns look amazing to my eye. if i had to venture a guess the C300 will gain much more respect after its out and in the normal peoples hands although at that price will still be out of the price range for your average shooter which includes me too.

i expect ScarletX users to become bored and frustrated with the massive crop thing.

regardless im glad RED is finally coming out with a camera that is surely shaking things up. good for them and good for the people that want it.

david

 

[Barry_Green]

Very true. (They're not aiming at us...) Fair enough. Would be interesting to know exactly WHO they thought they were aiming at?

Isn't that really obvious?

They introduced this camera in Hollywood -- home of the big-budget major motion picture industry. They opened a new service and support center IN HOLLYWOOD. They hired Sunshine Sachs to handle the event -- Sunshine Sachs is one of the biggest Hollywood PR firms. Their target is plainly obvious -- they are not competing for the indie/guerilla filmmaker dollar, they want Hollywood business. That's who the C300 is for. If you don't have "ASC" after your name, this product isn't really aimed at you.

How does that work? Well, think about it -- the 5D made a pretty big splash and a lot of cinematographers started using it. And they loved it and hated it. And Canon aggressively pursued them to find out what they loved and what they hated. And the first thing they did was issue a firmware change to allow 24p. Why? Because of the outcry of thousands of guerilla microcinema indies? Of course not. They did it because major Hollywood cinematographers told them "if you do this, we can use it; if you don't do this, we can't use it." So, even to the shock of Tim Smith, 20-year veteran of Canon and the head of the camera division in the US, Canon did issue that firmware update. Note that there's never been another firmware update like it -- because Canon isn't responding to user requests, they're not changing the dynamics of how camera manufacturers interact with their end consumers, but instead they made a calculated decision to enter a new market. And enter it in a big way, with a big commitment.

So how will this play out? They put a service and support center in the middle of Hollywood, they got Sunshine Sachs to host a PR event and get every ASC member and every cinematographer they could possibly drum up all excited and all attending. And what did those folks see? A camera that basically looks about the size of the 5D that they've been using (for its size, a comparatively tiny camera that can go anywhere and get shots that bigger cameras can't), but that fixes all the problems of the 5D (it now delivers truly sharp images, no aliasing, no bullcrap, no rainbow patterns, no soft low-res images, it connects to real monitors and real recorders, it has timecode and SDI, it basically is a perfected version of the 5D). So the folks in attendance look at it and think "hmm, problem solved, I no longer have to worry about the 5D, I'll just use these things instead. Same look as I'm used to, same basic size, but now Alexa-caliber images... sold!"

And that's the end of the decision-making process. The ASC member tells his producer he needs half a dozen of "those new Canon C300's" in addition to the two Alexas, and the producer goes and gets them. There's no discussion of price, or whether it's 8-bit or 10-bit, or whether they "justify" their price and "well, I'd use it if it wasn't using the Digic DV III processor" or any of those machinations that are going on here on this site. They saw the images, they saw the size and form factor, they decide that it works for their project, they order them. Done.

That's who the C300 is for.

It does not matter, not one jot nor tittle, that the hacked GH2 does 12,800 ISO at 176 megabits and costs $800. It truly doesn't matter that the F3 has 10-bit SDI output at the same price. What matters is that those who are used to using the Canon 5D, now have a "real" alternative that gives them everything that they do want, and takes away all the things that they don't want. And the price is largely irrelevant because they're going to rent the cameras anyway.

If this business model doesn't make sense to you, then just understand that you probably aren't in the target market of who they want to sell these things to.

It could easily be argued that a Ford Mustang is actually faster than a Ferrari. Does that mean Ferrari should drop their price to be lower than the Mustang? Of course not, they're sold to entirely different customers. And both are very successful at what they do and at making a product that their customer base wants; Ford will sell 250,000 Mustangs in a year, and Ferrari will sell 3600 cars in a year, and each has a very happy fan base.

Different products for different customers.

The C300 actually makes a lot of sense, in context with who they're targeting and who they're selling to.

For those who feel "left out" because it's not $5,000, just wait. There'll be a C100 within a year or two, I'm certain.

 

[Barry_Green]

From the footage I have seen from the Canon, is it really 3 times better than a FS100?

Well, that's a question for each individual buyer. For some the answer will be "of course"; for others the answer will be "of course not".

Is the Alexa or Epic that much better than a F3 and SLog?

Same answer.

Could anyone in the audience notice a difference other than dvxusers?

It's about a lot more than the final image that ends up on the screen. The journey can be as important as the destination.

 

[HHL]

It could easily be argued that a Ford Mustang is actually faster than a Ferrari. Does that mean Ferrari should drop their price to be lower than the Mustang? Of course not, they're sold to entirely different customers. And both are very successful at what they do and at making a product that their customer base wants; Ford will sell 250,000 Mustangs in a year, and Ferrari will sell 3600 cars in a year, and each has a very happy fan base.

Good points above, Barry. Good perspective, one that I'm not familiar with...(I'm not, nor have I ever been, and likely never will be in a situation where shooting on a 20K camera vs. a 14K camera with more features would not be relevant)...I get it...that IS the situation that the target customer for them is in. Again...fair enough.

I quote the above where you related the Ferrari/Mustang allegory. Cool. Nice comparison.

I'd just like to point something out here that is quite relevant. Canon is the new guy in this neighborhood. Digital Cine (high end) is a new market for them and they are clearly signalling to everyone that they want a piece of the pie. So, we'll see if this is a Mustang....or an Edsel. I'm certain that Canon will do what it takes to compete....(and I'm not suggesting what that is), but I am pointing out:

1. Their target market/C300 customer isn't on this site. (At least not many of them, 1.5 for every 8.5 )
2. They're new in this market segment and will have to prove themselves. (Certainly not to me as I'm not even the target)

Noted: Their target market may not be as "tech/spec-to-price/ratio" driven as some of us here are, but rather, purely looking at the completed/image output.

Great response as always Barry! Always an education.

 

[digital_walnut]

I think that's just an indication that you're not the target market. Heck, DVXUser isn't really the target market IMO -- how many people on here are shooting Alexa now and looking for a DSL-sized B-cam without the traditional DSL limitations? Not most, at least, not if it costs more. Unless you can rent out your camera (perhaps along with yourself as the operator), the C300 is not meant for you.

The Scarlet is really the odd beast. There are a lot of shooters who believe, in effect, that the reason their footage doesn't look as good as it could is because it's not shot in 4K RAW. I personally think that's nonsense for anyone not shooting motion stills for print, but that's not going to convince anyone, so I don't try, and won't. I do think that people are spending their money on the wrong things by maxing out their CC for a Scarlet, but again, that's just me. We all have different tradeoffs and lessons to learn.

I think people who are inclined to like where Canon is going with the C300, and see how it fits into their future rental packages, are just trying to explain to the typical DVXUser why it exists, why it really is a very solid release from Canon with a lot to like, for the people the camera is intended for. Why the C300 will rent like crazy (and it will). And perhaps, like this post, why it's not meant for them to buy (which seems to be the assumption by most people here).

For the typical DVXUser, lensrentals.com will be renting the C300, should be ~$210/day for a four day shoot, dropping rapidly for longer shoots. That's a ton of camera for the price, and basically anyone who would have been shooting on a 7D on a feature with a budget over $10K (for everything, including camera) should, without question, use the C300 as their A-cam now, probably with a 5D or 1Dx (when it ships) as their B-cam.

My advice? Practice on your 7D, shoot a lot, and when you actually have some cash to shoot something good, rent a C300. You'll be thrilled with the results.

I don't think we're disagreeing on the merits of the C300 here - it's a great B-cam, DSLR replacement, and on-the-road cinematic shooting platform for those who can fit it in their budget. I just don't think it's worthy of the Hollywood-centric "historic" launch that Canon gave it. I think it's great that they're stepping into the digital cinema world and I have no doubt that they'll up their game with future releases, but the C300 strikes me as an awkward step into that market.

I also think you're making a lot of undue assumptions about people at DVXUser.

 

[HHL]

I just don't think it's worthy of the Hollywood-centric "historic" launch that Canon gave it.

+10000

Congrats Canon! Look forward to seeing your on-going efforts targeted at Digital-Cine. Great!

Historic? Hmmm....
I get it, in YOUR history this hasn't been a target market. But, uh, no...I didn't see anything historic in your announcement. Perhaps others may have...fair enough. But a weeee bit over-hyped for the announcement that was delivered (IMHO).

Ironically, on the same night (relative to this thread), I do believe that Red's announcement was historic.

4K RAW codec digital-cine camera package: 14K.

I'm not the voice of history and no-one cares what I think....but it's nice to know that someone else found that a little over-hyped too (from Canon).

 

[Barry_Green]

I just don't think it's worthy of the Hollywood-centric "historic" launch that Canon gave it.

I certainly wouldn't have used the words "historic" or "global" to describe the C300. But thinking about it, I'm not sure that Canon did either. It's more likely that their "historic" and "global" announcement is: "we're going to be a major player in Hollywood". No longer content to sit on the sidelines and be relegated solely to the TV ENG business, they intend to be competing aggressively for the premium spot of the biggest-budget films. The C300 likely represents a bottom-end b-camera approach for them. The lenses will be their bread & butter, as always.

No wonder Red had the reaction that they did to the Canon announcement. No wonder Red decided to fire back on the very same day. And no wonder that they didn't fire back with a 2/3" fixed-lens Scarlet, but they instead took their flagship Epic and slightly dumbed it down and cut the price by two thirds. And no wonder Canon was okay with the term "Alexa-like images". Red thought they had this game to themselves, and Canon has said "um, no... our multibillion-dollar global empire has decided that we want this business."

Anyone find it interesting that people have usually attributed Red as "pushing" the other camera companies to move faster, but in this case it seems pretty clear that the threat of Canon pushed Red to react?

In retrospect this all makes sense; Monday-morning quarterbacking is such a wonderful thing. I expected Canon to make a 2/3" camera and that Red would respond with a 2/3" Scarlet. I didn't foresee that Canon was going to make a major push into big-budget Hollywood, and that would push Red into (finally) abandoning 2/3" (which is what I said they should do at least two years ago, but never really thought they would). I was really surprised at the aggressiveness of Red's response, but now in context it all makes sense.

 

[cowpunk52]

+10000

Congrats Canon! Look forward to seeing your on-going efforts targeted at Digital-Cine. Great!

Historic? Hmmm....
I get it, in YOUR history this hasn't been a target market. But, uh, no...I didn't see anything historic in your announcement. Perhaps others may have...fair enough. But a weeee bit over-hyped for the announcement that was delivered (IMHO).

The historic announcement wasn't the C300, it was the EOS Cinema line, which shakes up their entire imaging departments (video & still). EOS Cinema encompasses the creation of a line of new digital cine cameras as well as a cine lenses. It's an entirely new direction for a camera company that has largely been only in the prosumer ENG camera business a few decades now:

"The Cinema EOS system is the culmination of our exceptional R&D over the decades. It's also an exciting new outlet to channel our dedication to discovery and innovation for the future."

It seems a lot of people were so focused on a single camera announcement that they didn't see the forest for the trees.

 

[HHL]

In retrospect this all makes sense; Monday-morning quarterbacking is such a wonderful thing. I expected Canon to make a 2/3" camera and that Red would respond with a 2/3" Scarlet. I didn't foresee that Canon was going to make a major push into big-budget Hollywood, and that would push Red into (finally) abandoning 2/3" (which is what I said they should do at least two years ago, but never really thought they would). I was really surprised at the aggressiveness of Red's response, but now in context it all makes sense.

I couldn't agree more. And THIS is why we live in exciting times. I have no doubt that Jim caught wind of Canon's C300...(hmmm doesn't Vinent Laforet have an EPIC and didn't he shoot with the C300 a full month, at least, before Nov 3, lol)....and I have no doubt that RED changed their strategy based on the C300. So, I'm NOT saying that they are NOT related (these events). I will say though, that I LOVE the HYPER-AGGRESSIVE move on Red's part: ...basically...throw in the kitchen sink.....and do it now, before Canon starts to build momentum. And let me say it now, I have no doubt that Canon will eventually build momentum. (Rats! That'll mean even more competition for innovation and price wars....shucks, I guess I'll have to hang around and see what happens over the next 3 years...lol)

 

[HHL]

It seems a lot of people were so focused on a single camera announcement that they didn't see the forest for the trees.

Nope. Like Barry just pointed out, which is exactly what you are saying, which I already said, "Great, Canon wants a piece of the pie..." I get it completely.

I won't "christen" their announcement as historic until the prove themselves in this sector. (And I have not doubt that they will....) But let's let them prove it was a historic day, before they convince us all that it was. It's all good...I'll happily continue to buy their products (I love my Canon cameras), but they'll still have to prove it was historic before I'll let them off the hook for that "overstated/hyped" Nov 3 announcement.

I completely accept that other folks will just go ahead and call it a historic day not matter the outcome. Totally fine. That's just my 2 cents.

Cheers!

 

[Barry_Green]

Red's response was, IMO, either brilliant, or foolhardy, only time will tell. Throwing the kitchen sink at us was brilliant. Consolidating all around one product line that they build in-house, eliminating all the issues with foreign producers and replacing FoxConn and making fixed-lens cameras and all that, was brilliant -- they instead went with something they can make today and deliver today. And recognizing that the market has moved to large-sensor and 2/3" ain't a large sensor, well, that part was brilliant too (if glaringly obvious).

The question is whether they'll turn $35,000 Epic customers into $10,000 Scarlet customers. If that happens, it was foolhardy. There's differences between the two, of course, and reasons that the Epic costs more, but the same could be said for 64GB E-series P2 cards vs. A-series P2 cards. After a short time on market, the market spoke and the more-expensive, longer-lifespan A-series cards were discontinued because everyone was buying E-series.

Again, as said before, Red is run by a billionaire, and billionaire business instincts are a whole lot better than the rest of ours, so I'm sure they know what they're doing and they've carefully considered such questions and feel that the current move is the best move overall for the company.

 

[bruceallen]

Thank you Barry for clearly articulating everything. I vote on making your posts a sticky. Every C300 thread is filled with hecklers posting on it that the cam doesn't have 4:4:4, isn't cheap enough and doesn't fit their specific needs. Nobody listened to our 2c but hopefully now that you've spoken, DVXusers will take heed

Facts:

• 5D cams are used in Hollywood now because they make the a great cinematic image within tight weight, size and low light parameters. Rental price is less important.
• Hollywood would love to replace the 5D with something better quality, with better ease of use, while still being small and light weight.
• Rental cost of a C300 is tiny compared to the overall shooting budget for the day.
• F3 with $4K S-Log with a $5K+ 4:4:4 external recorder is too big and too heavy - and costs more! FS100 is small enough - but C300 offers potentially better image quality, standard PL and EF mounts, built-in NDs, less compressed output, and log (yes, even 8-bit) - EG this makes the C300 worth the extra ~ $150 per day to rent for Hollywood.
• Those crazy people sticking Cooke prime lenses on PL mount modified DSLRs have a lot of money which Canon would rather have going to them.
• This cam is part of a line of cameras Canon will announce over the next 3 years - it just happened that Canon had the sensor done but guessed the new ASIC couldn't be done in time (remember Epic's ASIC delays?). BUT they could fulfill an important use case for Hollywood (something no other camera can do as well) by pairing the sensor with the old (BBC-approved) ASIC and having something beautifully small and light.

Also, as a guy who likes and uses RED, I have to say: people have pretty weird ideas about Scarlet here.

In low light conditions, methinks a C300 shooting in 60i mode (with good deinterlacing in post)... may get an overall better image than a Scarlet in 2K 60fps mode. For less size, weight, heat, noise, media costs, better audio, etc. 2K crop from an MX sensor isn't particularly sharp or noise-free, sorry. I can tell you this first-hand as someone who has rotoed a lot of 2K RED footage (that was supposed to be keyable). Maybe with the Dragon sensor, things will improve.

Oh and totally agree with Barry on the C100 or C200 or whatever. And a C350 that does 60p? Or maybe a C400 that shoots 4K? But what are they going to call that 4K DSLR? Seems more like an attempt to fight off the DSMC side of Red's attack? Canon C4? C5? C1? Uhh... Yay! Exciting! Cameras!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

 

[David G. Smith]

I
Anyone find it interesting that people have usually attributed Red as "pushing" the other camera companies to move faster, but in this case it seems pretty clear that the threat of Canon pushed Red to react?

That is very interesting. While, of course, just looking at the announced specs of the cameras, RED "Won", but (Market) image wise, this could be construed as making RED look like the follower rather than the leader that they have always touted themselves as. In a way RED did "Unzip their fly" and admit that they were spooked by Canon. In many ways, it really might have been better if RED had waited a little bit, and built up more hype for the Scarlett announcement. By trying to dilute the Canon day in the sun, they also diluted their own day in the sun.

I still think that RED has a few issues to overcome. First is that I am not so sure that the need for 4K acquisition, and the associated hidden costs of the format, i.e. data management, has been sold to the production community. Second is their lack of a track record of delivering reliable cameras at a high volume. For the Scarlett to be a winner, it is going to have to work out of the box with no down time for issues everywhere in the world for everybody who buys one. ANY delay in delivery, or reports of unreliability with delivered cameras is going to be very detrimental for them.

 

[Adam J McKay]

If that Canon was under 10k, it would be kicking ass and taking names...but it's 20k...and that is really unfortunate. As for the Scarlet. It almost seems that it's too crippled, Again no full frame video? They said it cost more for the HDRX but you can only do 12fps at 4k with HDRX which is really no use at all. It just seems a lot of the "features" arn't really features. Yes amazing 4k raw at 24p, but really, really really, how many people on here are going to be delivering 2k material to anywhere in the next 5 years? Im blabbering.

 

[cowpunk52]

Well, I think the one thing we can all agree on is that a lot of innovative and spectacular work can and will be shot on both of these cameras, for the benefit of everyone - whether we're using it or just watching the fruits of labor. The digital cine market has exploded over the last ten years and really moved at an exponential rate, regardless of how quickly we'd like to see the newest affordable technology make it's way into our grubby little paws!

I still remember being absolutely gob-smacked the first time I saw DVX100 footage projected for the first time, and honestly, it wasn't that long ago. And I was gob-smacked again when I saw that little short movie "Marla" in 2005, shot with that dinky DIY 35mm adapter! I was so smitten I made one myself:



Ah, 2005... those were the days! RAW this, Large Sensor that... I'm just happy I don't have to deal with a rig like that anymore. I think I still have that thing in my garage somewhere.

Anyway, there's a lot to love about how far digital technology has gotten us, so in the words of HHL, "Congrats to Us All!"

We've come a long way, baby

 

[Erich Ocean]

Red's response was, IMO, either brilliant, or foolhardy, only time will tell.

I agree. To combat Canon, Red raided the parts bin from failed Epic ASICs. These ASICs were supposed to be thrown away, unused, which means that the Epics that are being sold now already include the cost of those ASICs in the price.

This means that Scarlet customers are getting ASICs paid for, in part, by Epic customers. Which means they are marginal consumers, paying less than market rate for the parts.

I have no doubt this is the case: the MX upgrade was what, $5800? So that's the chip. The SSD? $1500. The mount? $500. So we're at $7800 with normal markup before we get to the ASIC and the case. I'm guessing that $1900 for "the most advanced ASIC ever built" is a tad on the low side, not to mention all the other stuff that goes into it, plus labor. It's entirely possible that Red is actually losing money on each Scarlet it sells, with the hope of making it back on accessories and media.

So Scarlet customers really are getting a deal. Great!

But what happens when Epic demand dries up? Really, how many high-end S35 Cine cameras can the market support? And now with cheap Scarlets taking rentals away from the Epic, and dropping the price of Epic rentals, the Epic becomes worth even less. Not to mention the Scarlet is only marginally better than a Red One MX, and there's still thousands of Red Ones out there too. The rental market for 4K RAW is heavily saturated, and only going to get worse, especially at the low end.

If Epic demand does fall, Red could end up with a chip shortage for Scarlet: they'll need to sell more Epics so that Scarlet customers can get those ASICs "for free" (which is roughly how Jim described it at the event). If that free ASIC thing dries up, hopefully markup on the remaining items (accessories, media, warranties, etc.) will be enough to keep Red profitable on Scarlet. If not, expect another price hike, like the one coming in January 2012.

Red may have just shot themselves in the foot, or it could be absolutely brilliant. Like Barry says, "only time will tell." It's a good thing Jim Jannard has deep pockets!