There doesn't seem to be a lot of love for the Eos 1D C round here. I think that people are being a bit harsh on it.
Dodgy Codec
The camera uses a Motion JPEG codec, which sucks according to the learned opinion round here because it's not RAW. I don't think that it's that bad.
Firstly, it's a non-proprietary format. This means no dependence on a certain set of tools. And it also means that it's possible to hack the image with homebrew software.
Secondly, the JPEG runs at 500 Mb/sec. The maximum bit rate of the Scarlet is 440 Mb/sec. Less compression means better image quality, all things being equal due to fewer compression artefacts. (I don't know if the RED Code RAW format is more efficient than JPEG 2000, but both use Wavelet algorithms, so I'd expect them to be in the same ballpark.)
And lastly, the EOS 1D C has the same C-Log functionality as the C300 according to some of the reports I've seen. That'll overcome some of the shortcomings of not being a RAW sort of file.
Bit Depth
The Canon outputs an 8-bit image, which obviously sucks...
Well, maybe not. There's a post at DVInfo that the EBU reckoned 8-bits is enough for acquisition in most cases. More bits are definitely better for post production, but it's easy enough to up convert at that stage.
The EBU's argument is that the limiting factor in image quality is noise. The more compression you've got, the more artefacts you introduce. A 10-bit frame is going to be at least 125% of the size of an 8-bit frame, and a 12-bit frame will be at least 150%. (I say at least because computer data is normally packed into bytes, so the 36 bits for the three RGB channels for a 12-bit image would go into 40 bits, or 167% of the size of the 24 bits of an 8-bit image.)
So a 12-bit per channel image will need more compression to get down to size. That 440 Mb/s data rate of Scarlet is actually closer to 260 Mb/s for an 8-bit image, so equivalent to half that of the 1D C.
Cost
In 2004, the Batman fan film Grayson spent about $15K on 16 mm film and processing. The 1D C is likely to cost around $12K when it tips up according to speculation.
So for the cost of the film for a short not that long ago, you can buy a camera that's superior to what was at the cutting edge of digital cinematography back then.
It's cheaper than the RED Scarlet, and probably on a par with what the FS700 will be when the 4K upgrade is added. For what they're offering it's not too bad, though not the bargain that the Black Magic camera is.
Downsides
OK, it's not all perfect.
4K is only available in 24 fps, but Canon have made noises about adding support for 25 fps for the PAL market. I reckon it'll turn up in a firmware update.
It lacks a few of the bells and whistles of other cameras. There aren't any XLR sockets. No internal ND filters. And it's going to need a bunch of parts to make it work as a film camera.
But I still rather like it, and, if I can be contentious, I reckon it'll give the best image quality of any camera below $20K.
Dodgy Codec
The camera uses a Motion JPEG codec, which sucks according to the learned opinion round here because it's not RAW. I don't think that it's that bad.
Firstly, it's a non-proprietary format. This means no dependence on a certain set of tools. And it also means that it's possible to hack the image with homebrew software.
Secondly, the JPEG runs at 500 Mb/sec. The maximum bit rate of the Scarlet is 440 Mb/sec. Less compression means better image quality, all things being equal due to fewer compression artefacts. (I don't know if the RED Code RAW format is more efficient than JPEG 2000, but both use Wavelet algorithms, so I'd expect them to be in the same ballpark.)
And lastly, the EOS 1D C has the same C-Log functionality as the C300 according to some of the reports I've seen. That'll overcome some of the shortcomings of not being a RAW sort of file.
Bit Depth
The Canon outputs an 8-bit image, which obviously sucks...
Well, maybe not. There's a post at DVInfo that the EBU reckoned 8-bits is enough for acquisition in most cases. More bits are definitely better for post production, but it's easy enough to up convert at that stage.
The EBU's argument is that the limiting factor in image quality is noise. The more compression you've got, the more artefacts you introduce. A 10-bit frame is going to be at least 125% of the size of an 8-bit frame, and a 12-bit frame will be at least 150%. (I say at least because computer data is normally packed into bytes, so the 36 bits for the three RGB channels for a 12-bit image would go into 40 bits, or 167% of the size of the 24 bits of an 8-bit image.)
So a 12-bit per channel image will need more compression to get down to size. That 440 Mb/s data rate of Scarlet is actually closer to 260 Mb/s for an 8-bit image, so equivalent to half that of the 1D C.
Cost
In 2004, the Batman fan film Grayson spent about $15K on 16 mm film and processing. The 1D C is likely to cost around $12K when it tips up according to speculation.
So for the cost of the film for a short not that long ago, you can buy a camera that's superior to what was at the cutting edge of digital cinematography back then.
It's cheaper than the RED Scarlet, and probably on a par with what the FS700 will be when the 4K upgrade is added. For what they're offering it's not too bad, though not the bargain that the Black Magic camera is.
Downsides
OK, it's not all perfect.
4K is only available in 24 fps, but Canon have made noises about adding support for 25 fps for the PAL market. I reckon it'll turn up in a firmware update.
It lacks a few of the bells and whistles of other cameras. There aren't any XLR sockets. No internal ND filters. And it's going to need a bunch of parts to make it work as a film camera.
But I still rather like it, and, if I can be contentious, I reckon it'll give the best image quality of any camera below $20K.